504 [ASSEMBLY.]

BILLS (11)-FIRST READING.

1, Electoral Act Amendment.

2, Police Act Amendment.

3, Judges' Salaries Act Amendment.Introduced by the Minister for Justice.

4; Constitution Act Amendment.

3, State Insurance.

6, Sinking Funds.

7, Permanent Reserve.

8, Land Tax and Income Tax.

9, Agricultural Lands PurchaseAmendment.

Introduced by the Minister forways (for the Premier).

Act

Rail-

10, Transfer of Land Act Amendment.Introduced by the Minister for Jus-

tice.

11, Inflammable Liquid.Introduced by the Minister for Mines.

BILL-CLOSER SETTLEMENT.

First Reading.

Introduced by the Minister for Railways(for the Minister for Lands) and read afirst time.

Message.Message from the Governor received and

read recommiending appropriation for thepurposes of the Bill.

BILL-HOSPITALS.

First Reading.

Introduced by the Minister for Heailtband read a first time.

Message.

Message from the Governor receivedread recommending appropriation forpurposes of the Bill.

andthe

House adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

legi0Iative Eeeemblv?,Tuesday, 23rd August, 12927.

Sweatins In of member.. ..Questions: Wheat, damaged sblpments; 1, legisla-

tion ; 2, officiai report .. .. ..Federal Road Grant .. .. .. ..

Bills : Fire Brigaedes Act Amendment, In. .......F~remantle Mlunicipal Tramways Act Amendment,

In... .. .. .. ..Criminal Code Amendment, IS. ....... ...Broad Act Amendment, Is...............Constitution Act Amendment, 2R...... ...Electoral Act Amendment, 2R1.......Closer Settlement, Za.. ......Ilospfteis, fl. .. .. .. .. ..Northain Municipal Ice Works Act Amend

went, 2a.................. ...Permannent Reserve, 2R1..................Land Tax and Income Tax, 2n. ........ ...

FAGS504

504505505

506305505505518519525

530530537

The SPEAKER took the Chair at 4.30p.m., and read prayers.

SWEARING-IN oF MEMBER.

Hon. A. MeCALLUM (South Fremeafitle)took and subscribed tile oath and signedthe roll.

QUESTIONS (2)-WHEAT, DAMAGEDSHIPMENTS.

Legislation.

Mr. SLEEMIAN asked the Minister forLands: Is it the intention of the Govern-ment to introduce legislation this sesionto prevent damaged wheat being shippedfrom this State as good wheat?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS replied:This matter is receiving consideration.

Official Report.

Mr. SLE EMAN asked the Minister forLands: 1, Has he received a report front hisofficer on the North Fremantle wharf re-garding damaged wheat shipped from thisState2 2, If not, will he call for a report?3, If so, will he make the report availableto the House 7

The MINISTER FOR LANDS replied:1. No. 2, The Department only inspectswheat for which a certificate is required,and no damaged wheat has been shipped inthese cargoes. 3, Answered by No. 2.

[23 AuGusT, 1927.] 505

QUESTION-FEDERAL ROAD GRANT.Mr. GRIFFITHS (for Mr. C. P. Wans-

trough) asked the Minister for Works:What is the total amount of the Federal AidRoads grant that has been spent in eachroad board district each year since the in-celption of the grant?

The MINISTER FOR WORKS replied:,If the hon. member will treat the questionas a motion for a return, I will regard it asformal, and supply the return.

BILLS (4)--FIRST READING.

1. Fire Brigades Act Amendment.

2. Fremantlc M1unicipal Tramways andElectric Lighting Act Amendment.

Introduced by -Mr. Sleeman.

S, Criminal Code Amendment.Introduced by Mr. Mann.

4. Bread Act Amendment.Introduced by Hon. W. D. Johnson.

BILL-CONSTITUTIONMENT.

ACT AMEND-

Second Reading.

THE PREMIER (Hon. P. Colier-Boulder) [4.42] in moving the second read-ing said: I was about to remark that thisHill requires no introduction whatever, andcertainly very little explanation at my bands,more particularly as the personnel of thisHouse is almost identical with that of thelast Parliament. A similar Bill has beenintroduced and passed through this Cham-ber, I forget how many times, but certainlya great many times.

Hon. G-. Taylor: This is exactly the sameas the last Bill.

The PREMIER: It is the same familiarlittle Bill. I hope that by persistence weshiall at last achieve results.

M_%r. E. B. Johnston: You are an optimist.

The PREMIER: I do not think so. Thetwo succeeding general elections have shownthat the people of the country have endorseda Bill of this kind. That being the case, 1am sure that those responsible for its de-feat in the past will withdraw their oppo-sition to-day. The Bill is exactly similar tothe one that was brought forward last ses-sion and passed through this House. Aswill be evident to members, it merely seeksto substitute household franchise for the

Legislative Council for that of the £17 clearannual value. That is the only alterationit seeks to make, with the exception that italso proposes to abolish plural yoting, whichis the right of the elector to vote in anyone of the 10 provinces for the Council.This applies, of course, to the elector whohas the necessary qualifications in more thanone province.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The Minister'snomad form would suffice instead of this.

The PREMIER: I do not know that thenomad form has any relationship to this.In the minds of some people, all are con-sidered nomads so far as the franchise isconcerned. For the purpose of full rightsof citizenship nomads run into scores ofthousands, and it is time we abolished thisundemocratic principle.

lion. Sir James Mitchell: It is not as badas selection ballots.

The PREMIER: The hon. member shouldbe careful lest he offend some of hisfriends. As a fact, selection by executives,which takes place in some parties, is muclhmore ndenmocr-atic than selection by mem-bers of organisations. I wonder whoselected Senator Carroll for the last Fed-eral election?

fTt. E. B. Johnston: The people selectedhim.

The PREMIER: But who selected himin the first instanceI Who was responsiblefor his endorsement?

Mr. E. B. Johnston: On two occasions hiswas the only nomination received.

Mr. Sleeman: All fixed up!The PREIER: It was an extraordinary

appreciation of outstanding ability that noone else offered his services.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: Senator Carroll'sselection was endorsed by the people.

The PREMIER: Yes, but they had noother choice if they were voting for thatparticular side in politics. However, I amnot dealing with selection ballots.

Mr. Sampson : No. Democracy is thenote!

Hon. W. J. George: With a capital D!The PREMIER: Sure]ly the member for

Swan (Mr. Sampson) will not contendthat we have pure democracy in this Statewhile such a large proportion of our citi-zens are denied the franchise for one partof our Legislature. Surely it cannot hecontended that that is democratic.

506 [ASSEMBLY.)

Mr. Sampson: Electoral matters as re-gards this House have been a little baggyat the knees.

IThe PREUIER : Possibly, but I shall havesomething to say about what I think thehion. member has in mind when making thatremark. I shall be glad indeed to hear thehion. inembers defence against wvhat I hopeto establish.

Hon. W. J. George: The defence will notcome from this side.

Mr. Sleernan: It should.The PRE-MIER: A property qualification

for electors of another place has been inexistence ever since responsible govern-ment has obtained in Western Australia,and the present propert ' 'jqualification hasruled for the past 20 years. ThereforeI venture to. say we are utterly laggingbehind the times. The qualification isantiquated and completely out of date. Wehave not marched with the events of thepast quarter of a century. We have notkept abreast of democratic progress inother parts of the world by' retaining suchanl absurd proposition as the propertyqualification.

Mr. Thomson: There is plenty of demio-cracy in 'New South WVales.

The PREMIER: T know that for somemonths New South WVales has been an in-exhaustible theme of discusision, ]hut Ishould prefer a. Legislative Council con-stituted like that of New South Wales toone with the qualifications of a House suchas our Council. According to members oppo-site an anti Labour Government arequite justified in adding members to anominee House, buat directly that is doneby a Labour Government it is called pack-ing. The lion. member interjecting knowsthat large batches of appointments to theUpper House of New South Wales havebeen made dluring the past 60 or 70 yearsby successive G overnments of the day.

Mr. Thomson: Our Legislative Council ishighly democratic.

The PREMITER: No. A nominee Houseis more democratic, and can be maderesponsive to the will of the people-cer-tainly much more responsive than can aRouse elected on a restricted franchise.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: No.The PREMIER :Yes. Over and over

again there brave been instances in thehistory of the British Parliament where,the electors having given a pronounced de-cision in favour of certain legislation, the

Government of the day have secured theenactment of that legilto byte p

pointment of supporters to the House ofLords.

Hon. W. J. George: That does not makethe thing right.

The PREM.%IER: If we believe in eon-stitutional, representative and democraticgovernment, it is fundamental that themajority of the people should make thelaws of the country: but how can it be saidthat the people of a State are making thelaws when one branch of the legislature isrepresentative of ooly one-third of theadult electors of the State? Howv can itlie said then that the people are governing?The lion. member knows that another placehas the last soy, may reject or amend oralter all legislation sent to it.

Mr. Thomson: Do not vyon think all ourGlovernmients have occasionally thankedGod for the existence of our LegislativeCouncil!

The PREMIER: I do not know.Mr. Thomson: It is very advantageous.The PFRMIEfR : Even the most evil

thing, if I may use the word "evil" for themere purpose of illustration, has its ad-vantages occasionally. I am not here todenounce another place, or to assert thatanother place has always acted in an un-democratic way. I am not chiarging main-liens of another place wvith being Conserva-tive. What. T am saying is that it is awrong principle which denies to two-thirdsof the people fall citizen riphts. I havepreviously% asked, and I ask now, whatvirtue there is in a rental of £17 per year,ainy more than in a rental of £18 or £167?

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The great thingis that the householder is a married man.

The PREMIE: Some highly estimablecitizens of this country are not married.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: They oughit tobe.

The PREMIER: Possibly; but this quali-fication denies to numbers of marriedpeople the right to vote for another place-considerable numbers. As a fact, this isa geographical franchise.

Hon. Sir Tames Mitchell: Oh no!Thme PREMIER: It is. Any' dwelling-

house at all in the metropolitan area wouldbe worth more than fis. 6d. per week. andltherefore even the humblest metropolitanhouseholder would he entitled to vote forthe Legislative Council. But on the cold-

[23 AUGUST, 1927.] 0

fields many of the dwelling-houses are notworth the £17 annually which would qualifythe occupier for the Legislative Councilfranchise.

Hon. W. J. George: Those people live intheir own tents.

The PRENMR There are places in thehon. member's electorate where the weeklyrental does not come up to the minimumstipulated in the Act. In the timber countrythere are runny substantial faur-roomedhouses for which the rental is only 3s. or 4s.per week.:Ashligaro a

Hon. W. J. George: hligaroweek.

The PREMIER: People who happen tolive in localities where rents are low aredenied the Legislative Council franchise asagainst dwellers in the cities,_ where rentsare hig-h. The same thing applies to partsof thc goldields, where rentals are very lowindeed, especially in recent years. There-fore the franchise is all accidental and geo-graphical one.

Hon. AV. J. George: Are any of the tentsaround Kalgoorlie rented?

The PREMIER: Some are.Hon. W. J. George: I doubt it. In any

case, they are not structures of a permanentcharacter.

The PREITER:- The occupiers may ownthe tents, which, however, are not of theminimum annual value. The question ofpermanency does not enter into the matter.

Hon. W. J. George: It does under yourBill.

The PREMIER: The hon. member knowsI am talking about the present qualification.He asked was there anyone on the goldlieldispaying rent.

Hon. W. J. George: No. I asked withregard to people living in tents. Any num-ber of people on the goldfields pay rent.

The PREMIER: Not so far as I know.However, I san not aware of any actual tentsfor which rent is paid. Still, T fail to seethat that has any hearing on the question.We are asked to maintain a position inwhich we say to two-thirds of the people ofthis State that they are outlanders. We putthem in the same category as aliens, andeven more so, because to-day, while theyoung Australian who does not happen toown property or to rent a house qualifyinghim for the Council franchise is denied thatfranchise, the Asiatic, be be a Japanese ora Chinese, who becomes naturalised andowns land in fee simple to the value of £C50

may become enrolled for the LegislativeCouncil.

Hon. Sir James Kitchell: We should alterthat.

The PREMIER: I agree. The one thingin the minds of those who drafted our Con-stitution was the value and importance ofproperty.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Oh no!'rhe PREMIER: It is so. It matters

uiot from what part of Asia am Asiaticcomes, so long as he ownis property wvorth£50 and is naturalised he is entitled to votefor the Legislative Council. That is theposition.

Mr. Stubbs: Is not the underlying prin-ciple of this Bill the absolute abolition ofthe other Cbamiber?

H-on. G1. Taylor: It inight have a tendencythat way.

The PREMNIER:- The member for Wagin(M.Stubbs) taust know that in the British

Empire there is no more impregnable insti-tution than our Legislative Council. Prob-ably it can never be abolished under ourConstitution unless there be first of all amajority in this House desiring the abolitionof the Council, and then it can only be donewith the consent of a majority of the Legis-lative Councillors themselves. If the peopleo}f Western Australia elect to this House amajority who believe that there ought notto bec a Leg-islative Council, and elect to theother Chamber a majority who believe in itsabolition, who shall say that then the Coiin-cii is not to be abolished?

H-on. W. J. George: If you had a ma-jority there, would you abolish the Council?

Hon. G. Taylor: Be careful!Mr. E. B. Johnston: In that case some

of the Legislative Councillors might bemfissing, as was the ease in New SouthWales.

MNTr. SPEAK Eli: Order!I Interjeetionsare disorderly.

The PRE-MIER:. If both Houses, as re-presenting the people, say that a LegiglativeCouncil can be done without, why shouldanyone stand in the way of its abolition?How can anybody stand in opposition tosuch a proposal if be believes in the peoplegoverning? There are, of course, men whodo not believe in the rule of the majorityof the people.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: We do not goto the electors on that single question, InQueensland there was a referendum, at

507

508 [ASSEMBLY .]

which the people voted against the Legisla-five Council, and that House was wiped out.

The PREMIER: I know that, of course.M1r. SPEAKER: Order! The abolition

of the Legislative Council is not the Orderof the Day.

The PREMIER: No, Sir. It is bitt veryremotely associated wvith this Bill.

Hon. W. J. George: It sticks out a toot!The PREMI1ER: That is the bogey always

raised when this question is under discus-sion. People say they do not mind liberal-ising the franchise, but, as they do not wantthe Legislative Council abolished, they re-gard our proposal as a step in that direc-tion.

Eon. Sir James Mitchell: The abolition ofthe Legislative Council is a plank of yourplatform.

The PR.EI\AUER: It does not matter whatis on the platform.

Hon. 0. Taylor: It has been there for along time.

The PREMIER: Perhaps I could retortthat as we have three years ahead of us, itdoe., not matter. However, whiat is on outplatform and what may become law are twodifferent matters.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: We are apt toforget, of course.

The PREMIER: It is the people whoshould say, but in this instance the mnembersof the Legislative Council are themselvesmasters of the position.

-Hon. G. Taylor: And they have expressedtheir opinion on several occasions.

The PREMIER: I know that. I doubtwhether any of them wvould be prepared toaccept the will of the people on the questionof the abolition of the Legislative Council.Personally I would have no hesitation inallowing the question to go to a straight-ouvote of the people throughout the State. Ifthe people then said they did not wvant the'Legislative Council, it should be abolished.

Hon. W. J. George: Why worry thepeople? They have enough troubles of theirown.

The PREMIER: If the people favouredthe abolition of the Tipper House, thereshould be no power to stand in the way ofthe accomplishment of their desire. I wouldhave no objection whatever to the peopledeciding the question. I need not remindhon, members of the fact that for 25 yearswe have had no property qualification im-posed upon electors for either House of Par-liament in the Federal arena. The Consti-tution set it out clearly that there should be

the full franchise for every adult. That wasthe dlear provision made in the Common-wealth Constitution originally and it -re-mains there still.

H1on. Sir James 'Mitchell: And it i.s notof much use.

The PREMIER: Who would venture tosay that the Federal Parliament has not justas important, and in many respects moreimportant, functions to performn than Par-liament has in this State?

Hon. Sir James Mitchiell: You are chang-ing a bit.

Hon. G. Taylor: Yes, you are slipping.The PREMIER: No, I am not.Hon. Sr James Mitchell: You are the

Prime Minister of this country.Theo PRE-MlER: Whatever fault there

may be wvith the Federal Parliament, I donot think the personnel, nor the legislationpassed, would have been improved had eitherHouse been elected on a restricted propertyqualification.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: I would like totry it.

The PREMIER: 1 do not believe any pre-sent member of either Federal House or anyaspiring political candidate for a seat inthe Federal Parliament would dare to goto the electors with a suggestion that theConstitution should he amended to imposea property qualification for the Senate.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: What I had inmind was that the Senate has become ap~arty House, and as such has become use-less.

The PREMIER: I believe it has becomea party .House, hat that is apart from thequestion of the qualification of electors.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: But the quai-flcation means something, and leads to some-thing.

The PREMIER: Will the hon. membersay that members of the Legislative Councilelected on the property franchise are en-tirely free from party politics!

Hon. Sir James Niltchell:. Yes, with theexception of your Labour members.

The PREMIER: But the president of theUnited Party is a member of the LegislativeCouncil I

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Of course, hemust belong to some party, and the partyhe belongs to is the best in this State.

The Minister for Mines: That is -why youare where you are!

Hon. Sir James Mitebell: Of course, thepeople do ,iometimes reject whlat is good for

508

[23 Auans;, 1927.) 60O9

them. That is the way of the world and isin accordance with the scriptftrus.

Hom. W. J. George: At any rate there aremore people with us on our side than thereare with Labour.

The PREMIER: I do not intend to sayanything about the hon. member's politicalparty; I am merely drawixng attention tothe fact that the president of his party isa member of the Legislative Council.

Hom. G3. Taylor: But he drops the partyaspect ~vhen he takes his seat in the UpperHouse.

The Minister for Mines: Of course, hedoes!

The PREMIER: In view of the fact towhich I have drawn attention, I do not thinkthe Leader of the Opposition can say thatthe Council is a non-party House. If weturn to the enrolmnents for Assembly seatsand compare them with some of the enrol-mnents for the Council provinces, glaringanomalies arc at once apparent. Take theMetropolitan Province, for instance. Forthat province there are 6,894 electors, where-as for the four Assembly seats included with-in the boundaries of the province, there are25,678 electors. That means to say that inthe Metropolitan Province alone theme are18,7S4 adult electors for the Assembly whoare disfranchised for the Legislative Council.

Hon. W. J. George: What, 18,000 oddelectors paying less than 6s. a week in rent!

Tim PR3THGER: That means that practic-ally two-thirds of the adults entitled to votein the four Assembly electorates are dis-franchised for the Legislative Council.

Mr. Ferguson: But are not many of themeligible to become enrolled?

The PRE' IER: I do not know that theyare. It must be borne in mind that a con-siderable number eligible to be enrolled forthe Assembly are also not enrollea. Asagainst that there is the question of dupli-cations. It does not always mean becausea certain number arc enmRled for an elec-toral province that there are that number ofelectors. There are many who have a votein a number of provinces because they ownproperty in various provinces. Some peoplehave a vote in each of the ten provinces.

Hon. W. J. Greorge: But none has twovotes in any one province.

The PREMIIER: No, but I was demon-strating, that though there may be 5,000names on the roll for a province it does notfollow that there are 5,000 voters, becausesome of the names represent duplications.If we take the Metropolitan-Suburban Pro-

vince we find there are 20,930 names on theLegislative Council roll, as against 60,991names of electors on the rolls for the fiveAssembly seats included within the boun-daries of that province.

Hon. W. J. George: Quite a number ofpeople have the right to be enrolled, but donot take the trouble to become enrolled.

The PRE'MIER: We always hear thatassertion! We can simply take the rolls aswe find them. I do not know that it wouldprofit us much to go into the realms of spec-ulation as to how many are entitled to heenrolled but are not enrolled, either for theCouncil or for the Assembly.

Hon. W. J. George: There could be threetimes the number enrolled in the Murray-Wellington electorate that there are now.They did not claim their votes

The PREMIER: I do not know that thatis so. In that particular instance, however,there are 40,061 in those five Assembly seatsin the Metropolitan-Suburban Province whohave no vote, And are not enrolled for theLegislative Council.

Mr. Stubbs: Could not many of thosepeople be enrolled if they applied?

The PREMIER: I do not think theycould, because they have not the necessaryqualification.

Mr. Chesson: Can the lodgers who helpthe landlord to pay the rent, get a vote forthe Council?

Ministerial Mfembers: No.The PREMIER : There we see the same

anomaly again. If we tak~e the South-EastProvince, we find that there are 6,200 elec-tors on the roll, whereas there are 20,724electors on the rolls for the Assembly seatsincluded within that province. Thus thereare 14,524 Assembly electors who are dis-franchised for the Legislative Council. Ifwe turn to the South-West I)rovince, we findthere are 7,274 electors on the Council roll,as against 26,170 on the Assembly rolls for.seats that are included within the boundariesof the province. That means to say' thatthere are 18,905 whose names are not in-eluded on the Council roll.

Hon. W. J. George: Fully 10,000 of themcould get on the roll if they applied.

The PREMTER: What nonsense! Tenthousand indeed!

Hon. W. 3. George: I know it.The PREMIER: That is merely a wild

irresponsible guess.Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

jASSEMBLY.]

The M1inister for Justice: They are noton the ratepayers' roll.

The PREMIER: In the Forrest electoratethere are 2,869 electors and yet there areless than 100 electors from that constituencywhose names are on the Council roll.

11on. W. 3. Gecorge: There i6 an explana-tion for that.

The PREMIER: Our Constitution debarsthemn. Probably I would be correct if I saidthat the member for Forrest (Miss Hot-tan) is not enhitled to exercise the franchisefor the Legislative Council.

lion. IV 3. Oeorge: That mnar be so.Tyhe PREIEII: That in itidelf should

spur lion. mnemrbers on to rectify such ananomnaly. It proves mny contention that thepresent qualificationis arc mostly geographi-cal. A large number of tinmher workers inthe Forrest electorate live iii houses of nannliual value- considerably less than £:17.

lion. W. J. George: That is, not becauseot the annual value, but because of the lowrenrts charged by the timber companies.

The PREMIER: That is why the timberworkers are not enrol led.

lion. WV. J. George: They would soonerhave cheap houses than a vote for the Coun-cil.

2liss Holman: Would tbey9The Minister for Mines: They would

soonci' have cheap houses and the Councilfranchise, tool

The PREMIER: Every adult man andwoman in the State should be entitled, as acitizen, to a vote, irrespective of any ques-lioni of rent. or annual values, but merely byhis natural human rights. Each should beentitled to a futll voice in the making of thelaws of the State. One should not lbe re-stricted to a voice in the Lower House, withno say in the Lieislative Council. When itcomes to a question of defending the State,there will lie no p~roperty qualifications gov-erning enrolments then!

Mr. Marshall: There will be no questionof a stake in the country then.

The PREMIER: Of course not. In suchcircumstances, nomads and all will he ac-c p ted.

Hon. W. J. George. Some dlid not go.The PREMIER: T do not know that

much can be said along those lines regardingWestern Australia or Australia as a whole.

Hon. Sir Jamnes Mitchell: I know a good

The PRE-MIER: There may have been afew, but there -will be no qualification im-posed for enrolment if mn are wanted totight.

lion. W. J. George: There should not be,either,

The PREMIER: And there should benone, either, to debar a man Liom helping tomake the laws of the country. As I havealready pointed out, Asiatics can become en-rolled and have a vote for the LegislativeConned but Shakespeare or Buz-ns, if theywere resident here, would not be entitled toexercise the franchise. It is well knownthat poets, artists, and painters are pro-v'erbially hard-up and most of them -wouldnot be entitled to vote for the L~egislativeCouncil, as they would not po0sses, any pro-perty.

I-on. Sir Tames MNitchell: Burns owneda house and so did Shakespeare.

'Mr. SPEAKER:, Order! They are notunder discus-sion.

The PREMIER: There are many excel-lent citizene, in Wesiern Australia who -donot own any property. The *y do not go infor that form of investment. Many of themhave large inves~tments in Government bonds,in stocks, or in shares. They' live in thebest hotels in the City, but they do notown a block or rent a house. Suchi peopleare disqualitied from exercising the fran-chise for the Legislative Council. That isin the Constitution.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: it is in yourConstitution too.

The PREMIER: We heard a good dealrecently-I. think the member for Swan(Mr. Sampson) had it in mind when he in-terjected--with regard to the unequal bal-ance of electors in various cons ti tuencies inWestern Australia. We had Menzies heldup as the awful example of undemocraticelectoral enrolments.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: It is prettydreadful!

The PREMIER: At the other extremethe Cainning1 electorate with its 17,000 elcc-tots was quoted and we have had people,during the last few months, comparing therelative voting strengths of electorates, suchas Canning, Guildford, and other largecentres, with distant constituencies, becauseof the fact that their fellow citizens situatedin 'Menzies or elsewhere had twenty or thirtytimes the voting' power of electors in largeconstituencies. But the people who have

[23 AUGUST, 1927.] 1

quoted those figures, in an endeavour toshow the people of Leederville and of Can-ning how bad is the distribution of electors,are the very people who would deny theirfellows 'votes for another place.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Do you say itis right to have so many electors in Leeder-ville? We ought to reform ourselves.

The PREMIER: We are entitled to askfor reform where it is most urgently needed.Surely it does not rest with members whovote for two-thirds of the electors of thisState being debarred from voting for theCouncil.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: What has thatto do with it?

The PREMIER: It has everything to dowith it. The bon. member cannot escape thelogic in it.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: There is nologic whatever in it.

The PREMHER: But there is. The hon.member and his supporters, last sessionvoted to deny to 140,000 electors any votefor the Council. Yet he complains aboutthe inequality of the Assembly electorates.At least everybody in the State is entitledto vote for the Assembly, although in un-equal numbers, taking one district againstanother. Still, nobody is disqualified; every-body is a full citizen. However, the Op-position say the present distribution shouldnot be permitted to remain for anothermoment, although they do not mind peoplebeing disfranchised when it comes to a votefor the Council. I say the time is over-ripe for an alteration of the Constitution.

Ron. Sir James Mitchell: The situationin respect of the Assembly is rotten.

The PREM1IER: Well, let us deal withboth situations; do not let us leave eitherof them rotten. Let us have perfect equality.Let us not have the spectacle of Canningwith 17,,000 voters and Menzies with 270."That position cries to heaven for altera-tion," say our friends opposite. But ap-parently there is no need for any alterationin another situation a thousand times worse.

Mr. Latham: Let us try this one first.Mr. M4arshal If there is a wrong way

of going about anything, you are bound tostart that way.

The PREMIER: When we have 140,000men and women disqualified for voting foranother place, that position cries out foramendment first.

Mr. Lath am: But there is compulsoryenrolment.

The PREMIER: It does not matter.The hon. member would deny that largenumber of people votes for the Council.

Mr. Latham: Until we put our ownhouse in order.

The PREMIER: How virtuous! Thelion, member wants to reform himself first.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell:. You want totalke which suits you first.

The PREMIER: WVe will take both.The Minister for Lands: That is what

the Opposition do not want.The PREMIER: It is what the Opposi-

tion are opposing. It is the very essence ofinsincerity for any section of the communityto complain about the unequial distributionof Assembly electors, while denying such alarge number of people any votes at all forthe Council.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: You give pre-ference to married men.

The PREMIER: The hon. member, Iknow, would like to see everybody married;but, surely, single people are entitled tosome consideration.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell. Oh, certainly.The PREMIER : When it is a question

of a citizen's rights, there should be no pre-ference as between married and single. Thesingle men have to pay taxes and obey thelaw, just as the married men have to do.The laws applying to married people applyalso to single people. Therefore it is in thelast degree unjust that so considerable a sec-tion of our people should be denied the rightto vote for another pla ce, The only realdefeet in the Bill is that it does, not go farenough. It is, the most modest little measureI have known.

Hon. G. Taylor: It fails because of itsmodesty.

Hon. W. J. George: Why not make enrol-ment compulsoryY

The PREMIER: Thanks for the inter-jection. I understand the United Party atits recent conference decided to include inits platform compulsory enrolment and vot-ing- for the Assembly.

Mr. Latham: We have it already.The PREMIER: Bnt do not let the beg-

gars have a vote for the Council at all! TheUnited Party say to the large army of dis-franchised people in Canning, Leederville,Guildford and other big constituencies, "Weare going to enact laws to compel you to

511

512 [ASSEMBLY.]

vote for the Assembly, but you shall nothave a vote at all for the Council." Thelatest and newest platform of the Leader ofthe Opposition's party provides-

Hon. Sir Jamnes Mitchell: You do notknow your own.

The PREMIIER: No, and it would be agenius who could know the whole of the hom.member's platform, for it is the most nebul-ous thing ever put up. They say, "We willhave compulsory voting for the Assembly,but all you people there are not entitled toa vote at all for the Council."

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Nothing of thesort; it does not say that.

The PREMIER: But it does say it.Mr. Latham: No, only the Premier says

it.The PREMIER: And the president of the

party that supports tile policy of compul-sory voting for the Assembly will be thevery man to lead the attack on this Bill inanother place.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: This Bill doesnot give anybody a vote.

The PREMIER: If the hon. member willcome along with me, we will give them all avote. I have tried all kinds of Bills withwhich to enfranchise the people of this coun-try in respect of Council voting, and theyhave all been, opposed by the hon. memberand rejected in another place.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: You do not askfor a vote for anybody.

The PREMIER: Will the hon. memberagree to give them all a vote?

lion. Sir James Mitchell: You do not askfor a vote.

The PREMIER: I have asked for it timeand time again. Are members going to op-pose the Bill because it dues not give every-body a vote?

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: We will notask you, nor the Minister for Lands, whatw~e shall do.

The PREMEIR: The hon. member sug-gests the Bill does not go far enough. Willit get any support if it goes further?

Hon. W. J. George: Why not put therolls in order?

The PREMIER: There is no denying thefact that in Opposition circles politicallythere exists a strong determination to denyto a large body of citizens the right to votefor the Council, whilst at the same time pre-tending to SO much concern about equalrights in the electoral boundaries for theAsiembly.

Hot. Sir James Mitchell: We do not pre-tend anythiug of the sort.

The PREMIER: The figures for theCanning and the Menzies electorates havebeen quoted in this House.

.1r. Lathamn: So they ought to be.The PREMIER: Yet the hon. member

do es not see any inconsistency-Mr. Latham: I know we can rectify that

position.The PREMIER: But are we not entitled

to rectify the greater anomaly?Mr. Latham: It is not greater.The PREMIER: Of course it is. This

attitude is the last one wvould expect fromthe hon. member, a young man who shouldstill have ideals.

Mfr. Lathamn: My ideal is to pat thisHouse in order first.

The PREMIER: First things come first.The franchise of another place is all-im-portant. The hon. member seems to regardit as a %,ery light matter that 140,000 citizensof the State should be denied the right toparticipate in the making of the laws of thestate.

Mr. Latham: I do not regard it as light.The PREMIER: Yet it is of tremendous

importance that there should be a rectifica-tion of any anomalies in the electoral boun-daries for this Chamber.

Mir' Sampson: We are obsessed by theinfluence of this Chamber.

The PREMIER: I am obsessed by hav-ing to listen to the interjections of the hon.member. He is another who wiUl talk of theAssembly boundaries, hut will not let onemore name get on the roll for the Council.It is the last ditch of conservatism. I donot care what laws might 1)6 passed by usor rejected by another place, but I say an-other place should represent the will of themajority of the people of the State. Weare branding ourselves as reactionaries andtories of the wonst description. I know itis quite a humonurous situation that these140,000 people should be outcasts in theirown country, having not a vote for theCouncil. They are in just the same positionas Asiatics or foreigners, in fact in a worsep~osition.

Mr. Lathamn: The Council is not of verymuch importance, for I notice that its aboli-tion is on your platform.

The PREMIER: That has nothing to dowith it. The hon. member is beyond all hopeof redemption.

[23 Avers;, 1927.] 513

Mr. Sampson: Still, his remark is quiteapropos at the moment.

The PREMI ER: It does not matter w-hatmay be oil platforms. Every citizen has aninalienable right to full citizenship, regard-less of what May be on party platforms.Surely you are not going to deprive peopleof the rights of manhood and womanhoodbecause some political party has on itsplatform something of which von disapprove!What is on the platform of the LabourParty regarding the Legislative Council hasnothing to do with the merits of this Bill.The real fundamental merit of the Bill isto give every citizen a full voice in themaking of the laws of the country, and thefact of there being something on the plat-form of a political party should not depriveany citizen of his right.

Hon. W. J. George: You are doing prettywell.

The PREMIER : I hope that members ofanother place w-ill at least withdraw theirobjection to the Bill and allow us to getsome way along the road to giving the voteto a larger number of people.

Ron. G. Taylor: I doubt it.The PREMIER: I do notfinow; in the

past the members of the Council have showna pretty conservative attitude, hut I am hop-ing they will modify their opposition on thisoccasion. I move-

That the Bill be now read a seconid time.

On motion by Hion. Sir .lames M[itchell,debate adjouned.

BILL-ELECTORAL ACT AMEND-MENT.

* Second Reading.

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE (Hon.J. C. Willek-Geraldton) [.5.32] in mov-ing the second reading said: This Bill formedportion of a measure that was introduced acouple of years ago and was debated prettyfully by the House on that occasion.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: It is not thesame, is it?

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Theprinciple of amalgamating the State andFederal electoral rolls met with such generalendorsement by Parliament and the countrythat we consider it desirable to give effectto the wishes of the people. We have con-fined this Bill to that principle in order toget uniformity so that the amalgamated rollmay Drove successful and efficient. There

are one or two proposals to make the quali-fications uniform, but there are no additionsof importance. The alterations of the quali-fications and disqualifications are so slightthat I do not think they will occasion muchdebate. The main object of the Bill is toobtain ellicient enrolment. Every memberhas been concerned in elections and haq hadexperience of the confusion that arises fromthe fact of having separate rolls for theState and Conmmonwealth. People have goneto the polling booths and declared emphatic-ally that they were enrolled, only to be in-formed that they were not. They have ap-proached the returning officer with a bearingof confidence and called out their names,but the reply of the returning officer hasbeen, "No, you are not on the roll." Someof the people that have had that experiencehave been able to give the name of the per-son who witnessed the claim and to statethe time when it was lodged, and investiga-tion has frequently proved that the claimwas for an entirely different roll. WhenFederal elections occur, people who considerthat their names are on the Federal roll findthey are on the State roll only, and whenState elections occur, people who cousiderthey are on the State roll find their nameson the Federal roll only. I have seen peopleproduce a receipt signed by the electoralofficer, and they have been utterly confusedbecause they considered that, having for-warded a claim and obtained a receipt, theywere entitled to vote for any election.

Hon. W. J. George: If they send in oneclaim they think they should be on the roll.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Allthat this Bill proposes to do is to obviateconfusion of that kind. Therefore I shallexpect the support of the member forIfurray-Wellington. In fact, I do not con-template any opposition to the measure. Itcannot be termed a party Bill.

'Mr. Sampson: There will be a saving ofexpense.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: The.saving will not be great, but the point is toensure that people who have a right to beenrolled shall be able to exercise the fran-chise.

Hon. W. J. George: is it proposed tohave a three-monthly revision as at present?

The MINISTER F'OR JUSTICE: Itwvill be a six-monthly revision. The Billprovides that the electors already enrolledeither on the Commonwealth or on the As-sembly roll shall form the basis of the newroll. All who have sent in a claim card for

[ASSEMBLY.)

the Assembly roll will be placed on the newroll. That is a novel provision, but it hasbeen tried in various States-Victoria, SouthAustralia and Tasmania, I believe-and hasproved successful. 'No party has expressedany desire to revert to the old order ofthings. It is considered that many advan-tages have accrued to the people through theadoption of this system, and there haa beena general desire to retain what has provedto be undoubtedly an efficient roll.

Hion. W. J. George: I suppose you willwithdraw the regulation dealing withnomadic voters'?

The 'MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Thereis nothing in that regulation to affect theCommonwealth.

Hon. W. J. George: Yes there is. Suchpersons cannot apply to the Commonwealth,and a jolly good job, too.

The MINISTER FOR, JUSTICE: TheCommonwvealth authorities do nof seek todisfranchise a qualified person any morethan we do.

Rlon. W. J. Georze: They recognised thatthe nomadic provision was wrong.

The 'MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: TheCommnonwealth recogniise that, because amnan might have to wiander from one portionof a subdivision to another, he should notbe debarred from exercising the right tovote.

Mr. Kenneallv: Does it provide that hiemay enter any polling booth and vote?

The MINISTER FOR JU'STTCE: Tirechief advantage- likely to accrue from thepassing of the Bill is that there will be oneclaim card, one reeipt and one roll.

Mr. Davy: There cannot he one roll onlaccount of the differences in boundaries.

The MNINSTER FOR JUSTICE: Pro-vision will be made to deal with those dif-feiences. though there is nothing in the Billto provide for any alteration of boundaries.

l. WV. .1. George: You will have todo that, or the roll will not be effective.

The- -fl NSTER FOR JUSTICE: It isprovided that wherever possible the Com-mionwealth and State boundaries shall bemonde cotermlinous. For instance, it wouldmake very little difference to the Kalgoorliedivision whether the boundary extendedlright to the north of the State or stoppedlshort at Derby or Broome.

31r. Sampson: There will be a numberof sections.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTTCE: Yes,andl they -will be coterminous with our exist-inL- electoral boundaries.

Mr. Sampson: The Federal roll may eon-LWin three or four State eke-torates.

The M1NKISTER FOR JUSTICE: Yes,and the idea is to make the Commonwealthelectoral boundaries conform to oars asmuch as possible.

Hion. Sir James Mitchell: A Common-wealth division might include an electorateand part of an electorate.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Yes,and there is provision in the Bill wherebysuch a contingency might be mnet The elec-torate of Leederville might present somedifficulty.

Mr. Sampson: The names of the electorswould have to be re-assembled; otherwiseyou would have two or more alphabeticalseeions.

The M3tWISTER FOR JUSTICE: Thechief known advantages likely to accruefrom the conclusion of such a-n arrangementmay be summued up as follows :-(a) Com-mon units for the purpose of registration;(b) One claim form for enrolment or trans-fer, containing a declaration by the appli-cant that hie is not disqualified for Stateand Commonwealth enrolment or for eitheras the case 'nay require; and (c) the ap-pointmeat of one electoral registrar to actfor both Governments in each registrationarea. In order that members might be fullyinformed of what has transpired in otherStates, 1 havi'e obtained copies of the agree-mient between the Commonwealth Goverii-inent and thre Victorian Government. Thosecopies have been distributed to members sothat they will have an opportunity to studythemn when ironsidering the principle of theBill. So far as I can ascertain, the agree-ment. has proved eminently satisfactory inthe other States, and there is no reason whyit should not operate satisfactorily herd.If in the beginning there had been co-operai-tion between the Commonwealth and theState, the schemie of a single roll could havebeen accomplished without much difficulty.Unless somethingr is done the position willgrow worse with each redistribution of seats.W'hen we are re-arranging our boundarieswe take no cog-nisanee of what is happen-ing in the Federal divisions, and when theFederal Parliament have a redistributionthey do not worry about the State boun-daries. The Bill provides that cognisanceshall be taken of existing Federal or Stateboundaries when a redistribution is contem-plated. That, however, does not mean thatwe must adopt the same boundaries. NoGovernment would tie itself up to that ex-tent.

hi

(23 AUGUST, 1927.] 515

Holl. Sir James Mitchell: And no Partin-meal, either.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Thatis so. If the Comninwealth boundaries IH-terfered with thle requisite quota or withcommunity of interest, they would have to bedisregarded, but where they can without dis-ability be made coterininous, it will be done.The Leederville electorate is included in theFremantle division, and I cannot see thatcommunity' of interest would prevent its beingincluded in another division if so desired.That point, however, would not be raisedunder this measure. If the Commonwealthhave a redlistribution of seats, as they prTo-bably will after the census of 1931, theywill prohaI 'v make their boundaries coter-nminous with ours. The duplication of claimcards and of r-olis has caused endless con-fusion. Ani elector in a certain district goesto a certain polling place for a State elee-tion, whereas for a Federal election be hasto go to another polling place. If lie sets-out for [ihe polling booth late in the dayand ma kes a imistakce, hie has not much ti meto reach tie proper pl)ling- place and recordhis vote. That ba. caused considerable con-fusion and discontent as wvell.

I-Ion. G. Taylor: 'Make it 8 o'clock.The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Some-

one might be in a Commonwealth subdivi-sion of Perth. and on going to vote at aState election lie igh-lt find that his nameis on the West Perth roll. Under the pro-posed legislation the boundaries wviii bemade coterminous so that people may votein thle same place and in the same way, asfar as possible. The agreement follows thelines of that entered into with Victoria. Itwas accepted at first by South Australia,then by Tasmania and later by Victoria.There wvill be no misunderstanding in thefuture, and if a man is on one roll he willhe able to depend upon it that his namewill appear on the other roll. There willbe greater efficiency because everybody whohas put in a claim card at one time oranother will find he is entitled to enrolmentin both eases. It is estimated that there isa difference of about 5 per cent, in the per-sonnel of those on the different rolls-about21,4 per cent, are not on one roll, and about214 per cent. are not on the other.

Mr. Davy: There were 800 names on theFederal roll in my electorate that were noton the State roll.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE : Thatcannot be taken literally because tile boun-

daries mnay' to some extent have beendifferent.

Mr. Davy: They were not.The MIINIST ER FORI JUSTICE: Perhaps

not in that area. That would indicate whatI have been arguing. Either there has beengrreater efficiency by one office more thanthe other and consequently greater enrol-ment, or laxity has been displayed andnames that should not have appeared onlthe roll were allowed to remain there. Withthe efficiency that canl be hi-ought about byunited action on the part of the Federaland State Departments, it is expected thatthe rolls, when completed, will be as nearlypcirfeet as it is humanly possible to makethem. The Commonwealth, in their system,have what is known as a habitation index.A record is kept of each house and thenumber, andt a periodical check is made.Then the services of postmen are enlisted.If a postman takes a letter to deliver toan individual at a certain house, and findsthat that individual's name is not on theroll, he makes inquiries, and if the indivi-dual is entitled to enrolment, the postmanwill see that the enrolment is effected. Thepostman receives a small remuneration fortlis-T think it is 11%id. for each registra-tion. That in itself does not ,mount tomuch, but if 20 or 810 registrations are madeweely the postman adds a little to his in-come. At any i-ate, the remuneration makesthe postmen take anl interest ini the work.If a comparison were made between theState and Federal rolls, in point of effi-ciency, I think the State roll would suffer by~the comparison. To an extent the efficiencyof the Federal rolls is due to the work Ofthe postal authorities. Postmen are alsopaid for names that they strike off. Theyare occasionally* resp~onsihle for the re-moval of names because they discover thatpeople have left residences they formerlyoccupied. The various registrars also Workwith the end in view of making the rollsefficient. In the State, the work is carriedout by electoral officers, the police andagents. Therefore the combined efforts ofthe two sets of individuals should result inthe preparation of a roll that should bealmost perfect. There will be five divi-sional returning officers and 27 registrars.All will be Commonwealth officials and willhe paid by thle Commonwealth. The Statewill pay half the cost of printing the rolls,

516 [ASSEMBLY.]

book forms and the materials that will benecessary. The Commonwealth have agreedto find half the cost that will be involvedin the payment of the State police whentheir services are used for joint electoralpurposes. This will result at the outsetis an economy of perhaps £500 or £600, but.as time goes on the amount saved will beconsiderably more, and in a few years' timeit is estimated that the annual saving willbe onie thousands of pounds. Under theproposed legislation everybody will be giventhe opportunity to enrol. The first jointroll will be the existing Commonwealth roll.If any person has filled in a claim card inconnection with the State roll, and thenamne does not appear on the Common-wealth roll, that claim card will beaccepted for Commonwealth enrolment.The pre'ent boundaries not being co-terminous will make for some disorganrisa-tion, but that will be overcome after wehave had a little experience. Those boun-daries have not proved an insuperable barin connection with the amalgamation in theother States. With the experience of theother States we should be able to preventdifficulties occurring. In order to secureefficiency. it is proposed to amalgamate sub-divisions. That work wilt be done at theexpense of the State, because it will be en-tirely for the convenience of the State. ftwould be rather awkward to have, say,three subdivisions in big electorates likeLeederville and Canning, and to compel anlelector to hunt through all to find outwhether lie was entitled to vote. There-fore it mnly be necessary to make pro-vision for a special roll for electionpurposes to prevent delay and incon-venience. Probably before the next elec-tions take place there will be a redistribu-tion of seats, and wherever possible, with-out sacrificing other principles such as com-munity of interest, or affecting adverselythe electoral quota of a district, the boun-daries will be ma~de coitenininous, and sothe system will become more efficient. Wehave heard a good deal about the qualifica-tions of nomadic electors. The Bill pro-vides that electors of nomadic occupationsshall not be struck off the roll in a divisionor a subdivision merely because they arenot at the address given on the claim card,provided, of eourse, that they still live intile division.

IMr. Thomson: If a man moves from onesubdivision to another he will not be struckoff.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE:I aperson should be working on a fencing eon-tract, he can notify the registrar of hischange of address, and then he can becorrectly enrolled. Hie wvill be fined ifhe does not do that. In order to havecomplete uniformity, the qualitications forenrolmnent should be exactly similar.Our qualifications differ from those of theCommonwealth which provide for residencein Australia for six months. Our qualifiea-tion provides that the residence shall be inWestern Australia for six months. Our lawiva% passed before that of the Common-wealth was brouight into existence, and itwill be sought to amend it now to providethat a person shall have resided 'finl Aus-tralia" instead of "in Western Australia"for six months, and shall have resided forone mnonth within the subdivision. Now thatwe all have the one ideal in regard to theCommonwealth, a 'etson should not be dis-qualified because he has lived in anotherState and has not spent the requisite periodin the State in which he has gone to reside.Political problems are very similar in allthe States and it should not take a new ar-rival in one State any length of time toassimilate the political thoughts in the Statein which he has decided to make his home,and cast an intelligent vote. The existing.State law will be amended by inserting"lives" before "has lived." This is not veryimportant, but it will make the positionquite clear. It is intended also to make

soealterations in respect of disqualifies-tions. At the present time a person who iswholly dependent on State relief is dis-qualified from voting. I do not think thereare very many in Western Australia at thepresent time who are wholly dependent onthe State for relief, but in any ease suchliersons May have been pioneers who have,given good service to the State and who,through extreme stress of circumstances,cannot provide for their own subsistence.Those persons should not be penalised. TheState subsidises institutions like the OldMen's Home where some of the inmates,though not many, are entirely dependent onthe State.

Mr. Davy: Do not they vote now?The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: No.

Some are in relceipt of the old-age peasion

[2:3 AUGUST, 1927.]51

and may be disqualified by reason of theirbeing- wholly dependent on the State.

mixo. G. Taylor: How mnany arc dis-qualified?

The bflXISTER. FOR JUSTICE: I can-not ay. It is considered that there are veryfew in Western Australia who are disquali-fied on that account. There is 120 reason forretaining that disqualification and we pro-pose to strike it out. It has worked harshlyagainst some people, notably pioneers, in re-ceipt of State relief. These people may be,and tinder our Act should be, disqualifiedfrom -voting. I think we can shift that intothe limbo of the past without hardship toanyone. We propose that this disqualifica-tion shall not remain iii our Electoral Act.A further disqublification in the State Actsay that anybody who is convicted and isunder sentence is disqualified. Our Act alsosays "or is subject to be sentenced." Thatdoe not appear in the Federal Act, and Ido not think it should appear i our own.It works out in this way: in the case ofmany people who are first offenders, recog-nizances are entered into by certain partiesthat such offenders will be of good be-haviour. Those people are subject to besentenced. If thec'y do not carry out the pro-visions of the bond, or mnisbehave themselvesagain during the period of probation, theyare liable to be sentenced. According to ourAct such persons are not entitled to a vote.

Mr. Thomson: Has anyone been debarredfronm voting on that account?

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Therehave not been many such instances. Thosepeople who are disqualified under that clauseand know the law, would not make applica-tion to he enrolled. I do not think the elec-torn] officers went out of their way to objectto such people being qualified to vote, al-though the Act provides that the ElectoralRegistrar shall be notified by the Court andbe placed in a position to object to the en-rolment if he so desires.

Mr. Lindsay: The names are crossed offthe roll.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Theindividual himself may know, that becausehe is subject to be sentenced, he is not en-titled to get upon the roll, and that he wouldhe committing an offence if he filled in theform for that purpose, as he would not bequalified to do so. Tn filling in forms peoplehave to make a declaration that they arequalified to he enrolled. This sort of thing

occurs in such a few instances, tha~t it wouldmake very little difference to our electorallaws if the provision were not retained. Inorder to make the provisions of the lawuniform, it is ats well that that particularprov'ision, which has remained in our Actfor so tong, should he wiped out.

Hon. G. Taylor: So long as it does netapply to those who oug&ht to be sentenced.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Manypeople should be subject to various disquali-fications. The cardinal sin under our Crimi-inal Code is that of being found out.

Mr. Sam pson: Breaking the eleventhCommandment.

The 1QtINTSTER FOR JUSTICE: Thereis one provision iii the Commonwealth lawthat is not contained in ours, namely, thatpersons of half blood are entitled to vote.In this Chamber we have spent hours andhours discussing that point. I think thegeneral opinion of the House was that thedisqualification should not be removed fromour &et.

Hon. G. Taylor: That is right.The MlINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Rather

than waste timeP upon the subject, and pos-sibly jeopardise the passing of the Bill, theGovernment decided to allow this disqualifi-cation in the Act to remain.

Hon. G. Taylor: Hear, hear!

The 'MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Thattrill mean that certain distinguishing markswill have to be placed on the CommtonwealthrollI, if necessary, to distinguish those peoplewho are of half blood and are not entitledto be placed on the State roll. When thedistinguishing mark is placed opposite theirnamnes on the roll, the State officials willknow that such people are not entitled tovote at State elec.tions. There is one otherprovision which will mean an amendmentto our Act if we wish to tocure uniformity.This deals with something that occurred atthe last election, and over which a lot ofpolitical capital was made, although therewas no justification for it. Members willrecollect that the Government thought it ad-visable that claim cards should be lodgedon a certain day. The Solicitor Gen-eral was askced to state at what timepeople ought to be allowed to put intheir claim cards. The Solicitor Gen-eral ruled that if the claimi cards werereceived at any time during that particularday the electoral office would of necessity

517

[ASSEMBLY.]

have to accept chose cards. Under the rulingof the Solicitor General . which was givenentirely without any lead fromn the depart-ment or the Government, the electoral officewould have to remain open until the end ofthat day for the purpose of receiving claimcards. Onl the hustings the Leader of theOpposition made a great song about this. rcorrected him, and told him the procedure,hut hie persisted in saying we had done some-thing we should not have done when weallowed the claim cards handed in at theelectoral office to be accepted up to midnightonl that particular day.

Hon. G. Taylor: On Sunday.The AliNI STERl FOR JUSTICE: The

particular day does not make any difference.The law says that any man who puts in aclaim card on that certain day is entitled tohove his name enrolled for the particularelectorate. The Government went to someexpense to see that those people -who were en-litled to he enrolled for the elections, eventhough they had not put in their claim cardsuntil 11.30 p.m. on the last day, were notdebat red from exercising their right to vote.

lion. Sir James Mitchell: Were the Elec-toral officers in their offices until midnight.

The MINIST ER, FOR JUSTICE: Ar-rangenients were made whereby a box wasfixed outside for the depositing of late claimncards. and the box was cleared about mid-nlight. All the cards that had been lodgedon that particular day were accepted forthe purpose of enrolment.

Hon. 0. Taylor: Were there many.The 'MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: I do

not think there were many.lon. Sir James 'Mitchell: I1 said it was

done to enable certain persons who had beensent ito certain districts to qualify.

The 11I1NISTidI FOR JUSTICE: It wasd]one to give those p~eople the opportunitythey were entitled to uinder the Act of re-cording, their vote.

liom Sir James Mitchell: Somte Peoplecould not put in their claim cards until late.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: It isevident that the hon. mnember did not believemy vcontradiction of his statements. In theBill we seek to alter the present position. Wehave made provision whereby all cla-iym cardsthat are handed in up to 6 p.m. on the dayof the issue of the writs. ;ball he accepted,and the claimiantr, if everything is in order,shall lie entitled to be enrolledfothtpri

vular electorate. That is the Commonwealthlaw, and it has operated satisfactorily foryears. It sets up the time to the last minutewhen these claim cards can be accepted. Ifthey are not lodge,-d by 63 p.m. on the dayof thp issuing of the writ, they are out ofcourt and the names of the claimants willnot ap~pear on the roll. If they are receivedbefore 6 p.m. they will be accepted and thenames will be placed on the roll. This makesa difference to our ordinary procedure.

Bon,. Sir James Mitchell:, Objections canstill he lodged to the claims.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Yes.lion. Sir James Mitchell: Where?

The Mf7NISTER FOR JUSTICE: Thesame provision applies in the Commonwealthlaw, and it has worked satisfactorily. Ofcourse it ay appear very ingenious to thehon. mieifllr, but I would point out thatsimilar conditions apply in Victoria, SouthAustralia, and Tasmania. I do not think itis necessary to have our own special pro-cedure here merely because we have had itiii the past. Instead of the cards taking afortnight to mature, the claims will be dealtwith forthwith, and the names will be placedoil thie roll.

lRon. G. Tayvlor: From the date of theissuie of the writ?

The M[fN[STER FOR JUSTICE: Fromo p.m. on thbe day of the issue of the writ.

Hon. G. Taylor: How long will be al-lowed for objections after that?

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE: Theordinary pirovisions with regard to objectionswill app)ly. This Bill. deals entirelywith. the amnalgamiation of the rolls.I have given rather a full explanationof the Bill, thoilgli I hardly think thatwvas neessary as we bad the Bill beforeus two years ago. The personnel of theHouse has not changed to any extent, sincOthen, and we all understand the Bill andconsider it essential and desirable in the in-terests of thie people who wish to be en-rolled for each electorate. In the eircumu-stances I hardly think there will be any op-position to this measure either in this Chain-her or in another place. I move--

That thu Bill be now read a second time.

Oii motion by MIr. Davy, debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.101 to 7.30 p.m.

[23 AUGUST, 1927.151

BILIa-OCLOSER SETTLEMENT.

Second Reading.

THE MINISTER FR LANDS (Ho..U. F. Tray-Mt. Magnet) [7.32] in movingthe second reading said: This Bill also isan old friend in this Chamber. It has beenconsidered previously on three occasions,and twice has it received the assent ofthe members of this House. On the lastoccasion of its introduction by a farmercolleague in the previous Parliament, Mr.Ane'win, it received, I think, general sup-port; but unfortunately it never yet hasreceived that particular support whichwould entitle it to become the law of theland. I noticed that at the last generalelection there was almost unanimous agree-ment. regarding the necessity for closersettlement legislation. All parties sup-ported it; and if there is one measure marethan another that can be said to have re-ceived the sanction of this country, it isa measure of this nature. With three ex-ceptions, all the previous members havebeen returned to this House; and as theyall advocated a closer settlement measure,we can, I believe, on this occasion expectthe Bill to receive the support of everyone.

Mr. Thomson : Provided the statutoryrights of landholders are preserved.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: If T re-member rightly, the hon. member interject-ing supported a closer settlement measureduring the election campaign.

Mr. Thomson: That is right.The MINISTER FOR LANDS: And so

did his colleagues. On the previous occa-sion the Bill was defeated, or dropped, be-cause the Legislative Council made a num-ber of amendments to which this Housecould -not agree. If those amendments hadbeen agreed to, the Bill would have becomevalueless. The Bill is to-day more neces-sary than ever, because the demand for landis so much greater. In addition to theinquiries for lanid hy ordinary applicants,there arc inquiries by people coming to thiscountry with a fair amount of capital. Thacheap land and generally the opportunities-existing in this country have encouragedpeople to come from the Eastern States,bringing considerable capital for invest-ment in our lands; and it is highly desir-able that other people of the same type

shudbe induced to come here. Fre-quently such land-seekers have not sufficient

capital to buy a property, but they havesufficient capital to take up a farmn anddevelop it under a scheme of the natureproposed by the 'Bill. I repeat, we ought toencourage the migration to Western Aus-tralia of people of that type. The objectof the Bill is to brinTr into use land thatis at present uhutilised; that is to say, landheld iii particularly large areas and which.does not produce all that it could reasonablyproduce.

Mr. Mann:- That is to say, under this Billmuch sheep land will be diverted to wheat-growing.

The MISTER FOR LANDS: Just so.Unutilised land may, of course, be landwhich to-day is used merely for grazingsheep, but which could produce largequantities of wheat and other cereals. Themore production we can have of the lattercharacter, the more population will thecountry be able to sustain, and the greaterwill be the -wealth it produces. Those results, it is hoped, will he brought about bythe Bill. The board to be appointed unde rthe measure will include a practical farmerhaving ltical knowledge. This feature I re-gard as highly important. Nutmerous peo-ple have ideas about the use to which theland should be put, btt in many cases theirideas are not sound. I know country whichdoes not appear to be utilised, and whichthe. ordinary observer would regard as un-"Wiised, but the clearing and utilisation ofwhich would be attended with disastrousresults to the future of the farm. In por-tions of Western Australia, the wheat beltparticularly, the effect of uitilising suchland is to make the country salt. I haveknown lands become salt owing to the factthat the country was cleared of timberwhere the timber could have remained toadvantage. I am in that position myself.I have some undeveloped country, andpeople ask ma why I do not clear it. IfI cleared it, it would become salt in thecourse of a few years, and my water supplywonld suiffer. Myt dams would become salt,and the farm would then be valueless forstock-raising. Therefore it is necessarythat one member of the board should be apractical farmer having local knowledge ofthe country dealt with by the board. Whenwe have such a man on the board, the boardwill not be likely to fall into error. Theother members of the board will bepublic servants, as provided in the pre-

519

[AS SEMBLY.]

vious Bill. There are in this State atpresent large areas of land which can betruly said to be unutilised in the sense thatwe are not getting from them the value weought to be getting in the way of produc-tion. Such land should be subldivided andmade available for settlement. If it is notsubdivided through resumption by theState, there should be some means to comn-p)eI the owner to subdivide it and make itavailable for settlement. In the electoratesrepresented by some members of this House,the members for York (_Mr. Griffiths) andBeverley (Mr. C. P. Wansbrough) for in-stance, and also the members for Moore(Mr. Ferguson) and Irwin (Mr. Maley),there are large areas of land which cannotbe described as unutilised.

Mr. Mann: Also in your own electorate.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS : To alesser extent. However, owing to the factthat the Midland lands are private landsand that settlers onl them could not beassisted by the Agricultural Bank in thesame way as settlers who took up Crownlands, large areas along the Midland linewere sold to people who had money andcould afford to develop themn properly.Whilst those settlers did considerable ser-vice to the State and developed what theordinary individual without capital couldnor develop, it would be a very flue thingfor Western Australia if the Midland landscould have been settled in 1,000-acre farmisas Crown lands in various portions of theState have been settled within the last fewyears. In that case the Midland countrywould have carried a much larger popula-tion and would have had a much greaterproduction. if we can utilise the lands inqunestion and bring themn under closer settle-nient without doing injury to the presentowners, they will support a large numberof families who to-day are clamouring forland. In addition, those lands can be,settled without the provision of the usualfacilities for settlement, because thosefacilities already exist, In older areas, wherelarge estates are to be found, there are rail-ways, water supplies, schools and all theother advantages which people get as the re-suit of settlement. If these lands were avail-able, the State would not be put to the ex-pense of providing railways, water supplies,schools, police, medical facilities, and allthe other services that make for the well-beig of a community. Compulsory acquisi-

tion is not new in Australia or, to be morecorrect, in Australasia. A measure for tecompulsory acquisition of land has b~een.passed in all Australian States except ourown, and also passed in New Zealand. Ad-vantage lies been taken from time to timeof that leg-islation to make homes for newsettlers. I do not think the State has evergiven up the claim that it is entitled toutilise its resources for the good of its peo-pie. Whilst we may talk about freehold andthe advantages of freehold, in reality there iino such thing as freehold in Australia, be-cause all the land, freehold or otherwise, theState enters upon and reunies for publicpurposes, and also taxes whenever Parlia-meat deemis taxation to be necessary. If landwere freehold in a real sense, thiere couldbe no resumption, and there could be nofurther progress in regard to taxation. ThisState has never given up the right to re-

sume;, in fact, the State in many othercountries has never given up that ight, noteven in those countries where hereditarylandlordism has been an established fact forcenturies.

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchiell: Land tenure issubject to alteration by law.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Afterthe war in most European countries theGovernments resumed land. Large areaswere resumed iii all the States which hadbeen engag-ed in the war, the object being tomeet the demand for homes. That occurswhenever there is strong pressure of publicopinion, whenever there is neceasity for re-establishing the State in the interests of thegreat mass of its people. The Bill does notpropose to interfere with the owner who isworking his land to the best advantage.Under the measure land will not beacquired in such circumstances. Land canbe acquired only if it is not deemed to beput to its full economic use.

Hon. Sir James M1itchell: That, ofcourse, is very wide.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: It maybe wide, but it is as ninth as can be setforth in a measure of this character. Thequestion will have to be determined by thehoard. Legislation of this character isnecessarily of a wide type. It is wide be-cause the ultimate decision is left to theboard. Parliament cannot determine suchquestions. Parliament can only determinethe test.

[23 AUGUSv, 1927.] 521

Hlo,. Sir James Mitchell : The security ofland tenure must not be disturbed.

The M1NIST'ER FOR LANDS: I do notthink that can possibly occur under thismeasure. I feel perfectly sure that undera measure of this character the interests ofthe landholder will be conserved.

Mr. Thomson: But who is to determinewhether the land is being properly utilisedor not)

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Theboard.

Mr. Thomson: Suppose the owner cor-riders he isq utili.,ing his land properly andthe board do not think so; surely lie oughtto be able to appeal.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: I do notknowv how that can be p~rovided, or how hardand fast conditions can be laid down in thatrespect. Somebody must determine suchquestions, and I think the people are reason-able enough. One is not entitled to suspectthat there will be appointed to a board ofthis nature men who are otherwise than fairand unbiassed. They will be men of stand-ing in the community, men of knowledge,men who should be in a position to decide.The Hill will apply Only to rural holdings,and of course, like the previous measure,will have no application to pastoral leass-holds. The Bill covers conditional purchaseholdings as well as freehold lands. ina country like this, where so much land isin process of alienation, it will be neces-sary to provide for more effective andmore economical subdivision. Many con-ditional purchase holdings are not beingutilised to their full value, having regard tothe possibilities of the land from a wealth-producing standpoint, In the Bill there isno restriction as to the area that can be re-sumed, and there is no restriction regardingdistance from railways or other facilities. Itmay be necessary' to resume land along theroute of a proposed railway, in order to se-cure effective settlement. The AgriculturalLands Purchase Act enables the Govern-nmeat to purchase land up to 20 miles froma railway' or in anthorised line, the route ofwhich has been approved by Parliament. Thestame principle is embodied in the Bill be-cause it may he necessary to utilise landsome distance from an existing railway, orwhich may he sen-ed by a railway in thefuture. The total area held in fee simple inWestern Anstralia is approximately 12,093,622 acres: the total area held under con-

ditional purchase and homestead farm con-ditions 8,355,833 acres and the total areaheld under grazing lease 10,658,213 acres.This gives a total area of 31,107,668 acres.The total area cleared is 8,277,700 acres andthe total area under crop, 3,351,183 acres.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Those are lastyear's figures.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Yes, forlast year's operations. The total area underar-tificially sown grasses, is 128,781 acres;the newly cleared acreage prepared for thenext crop is 627,474 acres; the area underfallow, 1,677,372 acres; the area previouslycropped anid nowv used for grazing, 2,692,887acres; the area ringbarked or partiallycleared, 2,223,165 acres. Apart from the2,223,165 acres ringbarked and practicallycleared, there is a further area of 8,277,700acres in use, leaving 22,829,9)68 acres ofland alienated or in process of alienation.Some of that land may be suitable forcloser settlement purposes.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: .A lot of thatland is held under razing leases.

The MI1NISTER FOR LANDS: I admitthat. A considerable area is held undergrazing leases, but at the same time theLeader of the Opposition will realise thatthere are over 20,000,000 acres, consistingof land held in fee simple, under conditionalpurchase conditions and as homestead farms.

lion. Sir James Mitchell: There is theMidland Railway Company's area, of course.

The MVINISTER, FOR LANDS: It cansafely lie stated that the greater portion ofthat land can be used for closer settlementpurposes and greater production. It maynot be necessary to give the figures or otherparticulars from the report submitted byMr. Surveyor Lefroy. They have beenquoted in this House on several occasions.

Hon. Sir -James Mitchell: Is that the re-port on the Avon Valley?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Yes.lHon. Sir James 'Mitchell : Mr. Lefroy was

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: I1 cannotsa ,- he was wrong. Apparently he was. in-structed to put in this return, and I haveno returns or other information in the LandsDepartment to controvert his statements.No subsequent report was received, nor wasone asked for. I cannot say that there hasbeen any refutation of My. Lefroy's state-nment.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: If you were toinvestigate the position, you would find that

[ASSEMBLY.]

there are not 2,000,000 acres of land in theAvon Valley served by the Avon River.

The MiNISTER FOR LAINDS: He re-ferred to land within seven miles.

Mr. C. P. Wunsbrough: How much ofthat land is suitable for closer settlementpurposes?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: I am notgoing to say. I know that a considerableportion of the area is now being used forgrazing sheep, whereas it is suitable forcloser settlement..

Mr. C. P. Wansbrough: That land mayproduce more in the form of wool and mut-ton than it can in any other direction!

The Mi1NI STER FOR LANDS:- The hon.member will not deny that there is a lot ofland there capable of producing up to 40bushels of wheat to the acre.

Mr. C. P. Wanstirough: But quite a lotof the land that produced 40 bushels ofwiheat to thle acre is now producing morewealth in the formn of wool and mutton thanit (lid formerly.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: I amdoubtful regarding the accuracy of thatstatement. The hon. memiber is imposing toomuch upon my credulity when he asks meto believe that a few sheep will produce morewealth thani the land was accounting forwhen it produced 40 bushels of wheat to theacme. With wheat at its present price.. Icannot accept any such statement. I admitthat wool production is very important,and that the land I refer to is probablybeing used to its greatest capacity in carry-ing sheep, hut if the land were used forthe production of cereals as well as forgrazing sheep, the wealth production wouldbe considerably greater than it is at present.

Mr. Pavv: Is the theory to be followed.that land not used for growing crops is notutilised within the meaning of this legisla-tion ?

Thle MINISTEN FOR LANDS: Withinthe mneaning oP the Bill unutilised land isthaqt whichl is not producing to its fullcapa city.

Mr. Davy: Producing what?Thme 'MINISTER FOR LANDS: Wealth,

whdther wool, wheat or any other commod-ity that the land is capable of producing.

lon. C. Taylor: And the mnembers of tilehoard are to decide?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Someonehas, to decide the question. It cannot be leftto Patrliinnent or to some une individual; itmujst he left to sonic authority and the boardwill have to decide. If hon. members take

up thle attituide that the board are not cap-able of doing that, amid if they claimi thatno authority is capeble of deciding the point,then it is foolish to introduce the Bill.Throughout Australia, however, boards, as-sessors or sonic authority undertake thlegleater Portion of the responsibilities I amnon tIinin.

Rion. Sir Jlaines M1itchell: We will perusethe Acts passed in the other States.

The MINI STER FOR LANDS: I havethe Acts. In somie States thle owner submitsthle value hie places upon his property aswvell, but in thle Bill now before hon. mem-bers, the owner will have an opportunity toappeal against the value placed upon hisholding by the hoard. Thle first-class landin the Avon.Valley within seven miles of arailway totals; 1,123,270 acres, while thesecond-class land totals 519,980 acres, andthe third-class G85,160 acres, giving a totalof 2,328,4109 acres. The area cleared is985,170 acres and the area uncleared,1,343,240 acres. According to the returnsubmitted by 'Mr. Surveyor tefroy, the first-class land comprises 1,123,270 acres, yet only.985,170 acres have been cleared.

-Ron. Sir James Mitchell: Pardon me!That report is years old. It mnust be up-wards of nine years old.

The M1INIS1TER FOR LANDS: It mayhe, hult I think it will be admitted that ifthere is one part of the State where lessimprovement has been carried out duringrecent years, it is in the Avon Valley.

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchell: You are quitewrong.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: I amquite right. There has, probably been lessland cleared in that old established areathan in any other portion of the State inrecent times.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: You are quitewrong. It is practically all cleared.

Thle MINISTER FOR LANDS: Thepeople go in for sheep raising mostly, andwhere they do that, they do not as a rulebother abiout cereal production. The un-cleared land inclndes 404,660 acres of first-class country. No hon. member would arguethat first-class land included bad land, orlaund that could not lie brought to a state ofprod uction!

Mr. Ferguson: But the bulk of the un-cleared land iN rough, stony hill country.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: That isnot first-class land, andi therefore is notincluded in the area I refer to.

[23 AUGUST, 1927.] 2

M1r. G. 1'. W1ansIrotugh: It is included inthat return.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: That isnot so, It is further stated that the 404,660acres of first-class uncleared land would, ifbrought into production, be reasonably ex-pected to carry at least 400 additional farms,rfhe area of second-class uncleared landtotals 331,290 acres. I need not botherabout the uncleared third-class countr-y be-p~ause it is probably only grazing country.The land I refer to is mostly freehold pro-,perty held for many years. The fact re-.mains, however, that a considerable area ofthe land in this older settled part of theState has been alienated and has not been,worked to its full extent of production. TheBill now before hon. members is along simi-lar lines to that of the measure introducedin 1024. It provides for the appointment ofa board to be called the closer settlementboard. The board shall hold office for suchlime as the Governor may direct, and shallreceive such fees as are prescribed. Thebusiness of the board will be to inquire intothe suitability of any unutilised land forcloser settlement and the board shall havepower to enter upon any land, appoint assist-ants, and report to the Minister regardingthe suitability of the land for closer settle-.ment purposes. TLand shall be deemed to beunutilised if, in the opinion of the board,the land, having regard to its economic value,is not being put to reasonable use. . Theword "reasonable" infers that the board can-not act in an arbitrary manner, but musttake a reasonable view of the question. Intheir report to the Minister the Board shallstate -what, in their opinion, the land canhe utilised for in order to make it more pro-Juctive, and copies of their report shall befurniished to the interested parties if ap-plied for. When land is deemed to be sub-ject to the provisions of this legislation, theboard must give notice in writing to theowner and to all persons who haye an in-terest in the land. It is incumbent 'upon.the owner to cause a copy of the notice tobe served upon any person who may haveA interest in the land but whose interest isunregistered. Within three months after theboard have reported to the Minister, theowner of the land in question will have theright to notify the board of his intention to,subdivide his property for sale. Thereforethe owner has that alternative. He may say,"Well, apparently you deem this land Atfor closer settlement and I give you noticethat I propose to subdivide the land. and sell

it myself." In such a case the owner-twrnbe required to submit to the board his schemefor subdivision for the approval of theboard. He mnust also make lots available forsale at auction or by private treaty, as theboard niay approve.

Mr. Thomson: If the owner subdivides,will the hoard state the price at which he isto sell ?

The 'MINISTER FOR LANDS: Yes, forunless that were done it would be quite easyfor the owner to evade the spirit of theAct by putting an impossible price on theland. It is not desirable that we should leave-such a loophole, if, after notice has been.given by the board, the owner fails to notify.the board within the prescribed time of hisintention to subdivide the land, the Gover-0ior mnay, by notice in the "Gazette," de-dlare that the land, or a 1effihed portionthereof, has been taken for closer settle-ment. The land referred to shall then beabsolutely vested in His Majesty. But ifthe Governor takes any portion of the landfor closer settlement, the owner is entitledto insist that the whole shall be taken. Thatprovision is only fair, for without it theowner mnight be left with the least valuablepart of his land. So it would not be reason-able to deprive him of this protection, givenin the Bill. If, after 'having notified theboard of his intention to subdivide his landfor sale, the owner does not in the opinionof the board comply with the Act, the board.may serve upon him a notice of default,and thereupon the owner shall be deemed tohave failed to comply -with the conditions,and the land may, be declared by notice inthe "Gazette" as having- been taken for closersettlement. But in this e 'ase the owner isgiven two months from the service of suchdefault to appeal to a judge of the SupremeCourt, who may either confirm the aictionpf the board or direct the withdrawal of the-notice of default. The decision of the judgeshall be final. Members will admit that theowner's interests are thoroughly well safe-guarded.

Mr. Thomson: It will be rather a costlyprocess, the appeal to the Supreme Courtjudge.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Well,the. owner need not take that course. Thatis only in cases of default. When.notice has been issued in the "Gazette"that land has been taken under the Act, theboard shall cause a copy of such notice tobe served upon all persons having any in-terest in the land. In the Bill of 1924

523

524 [ASSEMBLY.]J

compensation was based on the unimprovedvalue, plus the value of enhancements, with10 per cent. added, subject to appeal toarbitration under the Arbitration Act of1895. In the Bill before 'is compensationto be paid for land taken uinder the Actshall be arrived at as provided in the PublicWorks Act, which was amended last session;hut any appeal against such valuation shallbe determined wider the provisions of theArbitration Act, 189l5. Under the PublicWorks Act an appeal is determined by ar-bitration by a judge and two ass eswors, buttinder the Bill wve are now dealing with anyappeal will be determined by private ar-bitration uinder the Arbitration Act, 1895.1 think these provisions must appeal tomembers as being entirely reasonable. Themethods of Arriving at compensation are al-ready provided in the Public Works Act.That measure was passed by Parliament,and has been in operation for many years.I do not think it can be said to have beenof disadvantage to any citizen. In view ofthe experiences we have had in this State, Ido not see how members can object to the man-ner in which compensation is to be arrivedat under the Bill. Land acquired under theBill may be disposed of subject to the pro-visions of the Agricultural Lands PurchaseAct, 1909, and the board may exercise any ofthe powers conferred on the Lands PurchaseBoard. The Bill provides that the Trea-surer may, -with the approval of the Gov-ernor, expend for the purposes of this Actsuch funds as, under the provisions of theAgricultural Lands Purchase Act, are avail-able or as may be appropriated by Parlia-ment for the purposes of this Act. Finally,the hoard shall keel) a record of its proceed-ings and of evidence taken at all inquiries,and the annual report of the board shall belaid before both Houses of Parliament. Ithink that sums up the purposes of the Bill.Sooner or later a measure of this charactermust be passed by the Parliament of West-ern Australia. Similar measures are inoperation in all other States of the Com-monwealth and in New Zealand. WesternAustralia is the only State without its closersettlement legislation. If we desire to settlethe country and make the State as produc-tive as possible, it is time we passed sucha measure. In years to come, when we havethe State more fully developed, land in theolder-settled areas will become -far morevaluable than it is to-day. When that hap-pens, the Government will find it extremely

diflicult to resume the laud on a monetaryIbasik that will enable new settlers to makea livelihood. Settlers from the EasternStates are arriving here steadily, not be-cause land cannot be secured in their ownStates, but because wvhen the Governmentot New South Wales or of Victoria resumean area the price paid for the land is sohigh that the settlers to be accommodatedupon it are quite unable to make a livelihoodoff it in addition to meeting their financialobligations, If we do not take time by theforelock, the saute thing will happen inWerstern, Australia. We hear a good dealof talk about the empty spaces and the needfor settlenment; but members must bear inmind that munch of the empty space in fer-tile Australia is due to the fact thattile settler is not able to get the land.New South Wales, Victoria, and South Aus-tralia. have not been able to enter upon avig-orous imimigiation policy, beyond bring-ig- out some farm labourers, because it hasbeen impossible to get sufficient land. Op-position members wvho, in their constituenm-cies, deplore the rise of the cities and theexodus front country districts into thosecities, will realise that most of the exodusto the cities is because there are no oppor-tunities in the country for the young peoplewvho would like to take up land. The greatestcurse of Australia is high land values. Ilike to see a reasonable price offering forland, but when the price soars too high newvsettlers going on the land find it utterlyimp1 ossible to make a livelihood.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: It all dependson the prices they get for their produce.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: But, as1. said the other night, such schemes as thePaterson butter schcme have been called intobeing because land in the Eastern States istoo dear.

Hort. Sir James Mitchell: So too withthe. dried fruits scheme.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: No, thathas arisen because the rower has not alocal market for his produce, and so has tosend it overseas at the best price he can get.But, as I say, in the butter and other alliedindustries the trouble is the high land values.

Mr. Davy: What fixes the price of land?The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Wlen

an established ommunnity is built up andthe young people want land, their demandcreates a value. The extraordinary demandfor land in the Eastern States has raisedvalues to an extraordinary pitch. In many

[23 AUGUST, 1927.] 525

instances settlers, paying down as much as£2,000 for their land, have to borrow therest of the money from banks and otherfinancial institutions. So those banks can-not afford to let the land deprediate in value.They have to keep up the pretence that theland is of a very high via.

Mr. Davy: You mean that the banks keepup the price?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: No, thewhole of society endeavours to do that.

Mr. Davy: The effect of suppiy and de-niand.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Land onwhlich butter is produced in Australia hasgot beyond the lawv of supply and demand,and the butter producer has had to levy onthe community' to the extent of £2,000,000to enable him to make a living.

Mr. Thomson: That argument applies tomany other things.

Mr. Davy: If by awarding bonuses youmake it more profitable to produce butter,you increase the value of dairy land, becausemore people want to go into the butter in-dustry.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: Ofcourse the demand for land increases itsvalue. That has been very noticeable in theEastern States. Even in Western Australialand values have increased, despite the greatarea of Crown land made available for set-tlement every year, and owing to the goodprices we have been getting for wheat andwool.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Our land valuesare not too high yet.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: No, andit is a good thing for Western Australia.That is what is making this State so attrac-tive and getting it so well spoken of in theEastern States. That is why we are receiv-ing hundreds of inquiries by letter and frompersons coming here in search of land; itis because our land values are not yet toohigh, and men who go on the land in thisState have a chance to make a livelihood.However, if we delay the passing of thismeasure, every year will make the positionmore difficult. It will become impossible toresume these large areas, for the cost willbe so high that the new settler will not beable to pay the price. That will be bad forthe would-be settler and bad for the Statealso. I hope the Bill will have a cordial ac-ceptance in this Chamber, and that on this

occasion it will also meet with the endorse-nieat of another place. I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

On motion by Hon. Sir James Mitchell,debate adjourned.

BILL-HOSPITALS.

Second Reading.

THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH (H7on.S. W. Munsie-Hannans) [8.15] in movingthe second reading said: I do not intend todetain the House very long in explainingthe provisions of this Bill. Though it con-tains 38 clauses, it is purely a machinerymeasure. We have a Hospitals Act on thestatute-book that was passed in 1894, butsince then no legislation dealing with hosoi-tals has been passed. The Act of 1894 ap.plies to only two hospitals in the State,namely, those of Perth and Frenmantle.Other hosp~itals are not governed by anylegislation. I think I am right in sayingit is the desire of the people in this Statethat wve should have legislation to governour hospitals. We have 77 hospitals andiover 75 of them there is no legislative con-trol.

Mir. Marshall: Some of them have got onvery well without it, too.

The M1INISTER FOR HEALTH: I amiprepared to admit they have, but some ofthem would have got on much better hadthere been somne legislation. On two occa-sions during the last seven years hospitalsBills have been introduced, the main objectof which was to raise revenue for the main-tenance of hospitals, and it was on the ques-tion of the method of raising revenue thatnearly the whole of the controversy tookplace. The Bill introduced by the memberfor Swan (Mrx. Sampson) contained everymachinery clause to be found in this meas-uire.

Air. Sampson: It would have been well ifthat Bill had been passed.

The MIXISTER FOR HEALTH: Ifthat Bill had become law, I would not benearly so well off as I am now. On thefigures supplied by the hon. member whenhe was moving the second reading, the hos-pitals would have benefited to the extent ofonly £18,000 per year. At present I obtainmore than that from the entertainments tax.and the people are paying no extra taxationto provide it.

526 [ASSEMBLY.]

Hon. Sir James Mitchell; The people paymore than before by way of entertainmentstax.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Hadthat Bill been passed and the whole of themoney derived from it been applied to thehospitals, our hospitals would have beenmuch better off, but it was intended to de-crease the amount of the Government sub-sidy to hospitals by at least £100,'000 peryecar.

HIon. Sir James Mitchell: No, £C50,000.The 'MINISTER FOR HEALTH: NO,

the bon. memiber reduced the subsidy by£50,000 for the half year, proving conchi-sivelv that his intention was to reduce itby £100,000 for the full year.

[Ion. Sir James M1itchell: That Bill wventto a select committee.

The MIX]ISTER FOR HEALTH: Butthe select committee recommended a tax ofid. in the pound on all income, the procecrdsto go to the upkeep of hospita-ls. They didnot recommiend that £100,000 of the pro-ceeds should he atilised to relieve consoli-dated revenue.

Mr. Sampson: It wvas a unanimous recoin-mnidation.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: W'eare not discussing that Hill at present.

Mr. L.atham: It was a joll 'y good Bill.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: If the

hnspitals had received the benefit of thewhole of the money, it would have been agood measure, but unfortunately the Treas--urer of the day intended that consolidatedrevenue should benefit from it. The peoplewere to he asked to subscribe £113,000 peryear, of -which £C18,000 was to be devotedto hospitalJs aod the balance to reducing I hedefivit.

Mr. Sampson: Those figures are wrong.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: If that

is so, the hon. member gave wrong figureswhen moving the seond reading of the Bill.Those figures were quoted by him from hissent on this side of the House.

Mr. Sampson: There was provision forfree service, too.

Mlr. Chesson: You would like to forgetthat now.

The 'MINTS TER FOR HEALTH: Weneed not discuss that Bill any further. Allthe controversy at the time centred on thescheme for raising funds for the mainten-ance of hospitals. This Bill is designed togovern hospitals and to give local authori-ties the right to contribute towards the costof e-recting hospitals.

Mr. Lat ham: In other words interferenceby the Government without any financialassistance.

The )MINISTER FOR HEALTH:. Noth-ing of the kind. As a matter of fact therewill lie no compulsion -with one exception.Thiere might be five local authorities in adeclared hosp~ital district, and the Bill pro-vides that if three-fourths of the local nu-thoritiesi ask for Government assistance tobuild a hospital and are prepared to findtheir qluota, the Minister may compel theother local authorities to join in the scheme.If there is no such request from the localauthorities, there will be nO obligation onany local body or number of local bodiesto do anything- towards the provision ofhospitals.

Mr. Sampson: Then this Bill will notprovide for uniform legislation throughoutthe State.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: It will.HOn. Sir James 'Mitchell:- It cannot if

it is optional for the local authorities tomake that request.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: So farais possible 1 wvant everything connected withhospitals to he optional. Some people, ifthey had their way, would give the controlof hospitals wholly to the Government. Theyarguei that it should not be necessary forthie public to take an interest in the hospi-tals and that it is the duty of the Govern-ment to care for the sick. T should be sorryif the dav arrived when that view was taken.T believe that the feeling of the people gen-erally towards hospitals and the interestthey take in local hospitals is better thanit ever has baen, and that is the spirit I-wi~h to See created throughout the State.

Mr. Sampson: Some districts are lookedafter and some have to look after them-selves.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Thehon. member cannot point to any one districtthat is; not looked after by the Government.So far the bon. member has not been rightin any one of his interjections and I doubtwhether he will be.

Mr. Sampson: The variation in the treat-ment of Government hospitals is well known.

The MIrN\TSTER FOR HEALTH: Thehon. member cannot cite one hiospital thatis not receiving assistance from the Govern-ment.

'Mr. Sampson:. Quite so, but the assistanceis not always on the same basis.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: TheGovernment are paying a subsidy of £39,000

[23 AUGUST, 1927.3 2

a year to the Perth Hospital. Would thehon. member suggest that a similar sumshould be paid to the nurse at lamunda?

Mr. Sampson: That is beside the mark.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Of

courbe there is a difference, because the workof the nurse at IKalamunda cannot be com-pared with that otf the Perth Hospital.

M1r. Sampson: And there is a differencebetween the committee hospitals and thosecontrolled by the Government.

The MIHNISTER FOR HEALTH: I ad-Inut it.

Mir. Sampson: Then why dispute itM.The -MINISTER FOR HEALTH: There

are hospitals controlled by the Governmentthat to my way of thinking should be eon-trolled by the local authorities. We are-endeavouring to get local committees to takecharge of hospitals that are Goverujinent boa-pitnl, and I hope that we shall succeed allround. 'Wre have succeeded in two or threeinstances.

Hon. Sir James Mlitchell: In Perth!The MI1NISTER FOR HEALTH: I do

not want that to apply to Perth Hospital,wt hich I do not wish to see controlled otherthan by the Medical Departmnent. The PerthHospital is a training school not only fornu1rses, but for medical men, and it is onlyrighit that it should he, to a fairly large ex-tent, under the control of the Medical De-partment. Onl a bed basis there are hospitalsthat receive a greater subsidy than does thePerth Hospital. The last report I saw stated-that 27 per cent. of the beds in the PerthHospital were occupied by people from out-side the metropolitan area, so the Perth Hos-pital is a Western Australian hospital.

Mr. E. 1B. Johnston: If there are twohiospitals near to a local authority, will youallow them to decide which they will sup-port?

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Yes;they may do it now, and they will be ableto do it under this measure. The Bill willenable hboards of management to be ap-pointed for each existi~g hospital and willpermit of the constitution of such boardsbeing varied in accordance with the needs orpeculiarities of each district. Hospitalboards so created will be given the usualpowers of incorporation, may sue or be sued,-may make rules, for their own proceedingsand may make by-laws for the general con-duct of their ho spitals. Such boards willhave power to mnagse hospitals asia to col-lect revenue in respect thereof. The linesof expenditure are laid down in Clause 21.

The -Bill also provides that the Minister may,if he thinks necessary, direct the holdingof anl inquiryv into hospital matters, anadolficers appointed under the measure willhave the powers of inspectors. The depart-ment on various occasions have receivedcomplaints from members of hospital boardsand committees to the effect that the man-agement wvas not what it ought to be. Atpresent there is no power to make even a.inquiry into the management and generalconduct of committee hospitals. The onlypower we have in the event of serious ob-jection being raised to inspection or inquiryonl behalf of the Government is to stop thesubsidy. That has been done in one instancesince I have been -Minister. There were twoother occasions on which we sent officersto make inquiries. They were unable toinake the inquiries, and unfortunately forthe district concerned, those hospitals havebeen left lamenting because we had no powerto make ail inquiry or demand an audit ofthe books.

Mr. Brown: floes this Bill compel roadboards to strike a rateI

The 'MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Roadboards have that right at present. This isgiving municipalities the right to find theirown quota of the cost. We have oA twooccasions built fairly large country hospitals,namely ait Katanning and Collie. In bothcases the Government provided the capital,and an agreement was arrived at with thelocal author-ities that they should pay in-terest and sinking fund on one-half of thecapital cost. Three other districts havea ngreed to a similar proposition for theirhospital requirements. Unfortunately themunicipalities have no legal right to do this,but the 'Bill will give them the legal right,and legalise the action of the other two dis-,tricts, Katanning and Collie, which havealready done this.

Mr. Mann: Is there any provision for,taxing those who are not holders of pro-pertyI

The MINISTER, FOR HEALTH: Thereis no provision for taxing anyone. The Billdoes not raise revenue for hospitals. Poweris given to prescribe a system of accountswhich shall he followed by the hospitalhoards, and there is also provision for anannual audit of such accounts to be madeby any officer or officers appointed by theMinister. Members will agree that such athing is necessary. There have been threecases already in which, had we possessedthis power, the hospital committee concerned

527

[ASSEMBLY.]

would not have found itself in the positionit did. When the Government have foundpart or the whole of the money, they shouldhave the right, when informed that thingsare not as they ought to be, to have an in-spection and audit made of the books. Mostof our hospitals have been labonring underthe delusion all these years that they hi$dsome legal standingm in the matter of debtsowed by patients. If a person had beenaccommodated in onae of those hospitals, hadreceived proper medical and nursing atten-tion, and had been restored to health,and was in a position to pay butdid not pay, the committees of hospitals inthe country districts, and even the manage-inent of the Government hospitals, wereunder the impression that they had the rightto sue for the fees that were dune, and theyassumed that right.

Mir, Latham: The Roebourne hospital did.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Fur-

thernmore, they obtained the money.Mtk. tatham: They gaoled an unfortunate

fellow.The MINISTER FOE HEALTH: In

eases where the department sued on ac-count of departmental hospitals they, too,received the money. If anyone raisedthe point, not one of those Government hos-pitals, or committee hospitals outside Perthand Fremantle, could claim one shilling.

Mr, ;-%ann: So that a person who was inprison for such a debt would be imprisonedillegally?

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH : Ishould say so, but I do not know the caseto which the hon, member referred.

Mr. Mfann: Did -you not see it in thenewspapers?

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: I didnot read about the ease referred to. Thereis no legal power at present to sue for moneythat might he owinig to any hospital in theState with the exception of those in Perthand Fremantle.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: It is a pity to men-tion it.

The MITNISTER FOR HEALTH: No.I am making provision in the BSill that debtsowing- at present to hospitals will be broughtunder the Act. It is right that memberss;hould know this.

Mr. Heron: Hospitals have bluffed overthat for a good while.

The 'MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Yes,and many of them did not know they werehlumffng. Many thought they had the legal

power to sue, and I believe they should haveit. The Bill makes provision for the localauthorities to contribute their share of thecapital cost of the erection of a hospital,That is purely optional, and the local aul-thorities may ask for the right to do this.We cannot force the hand of any local au-thority in this matter, and I am not askingfor power to do so.

Hon. Six James Mitchell: There is themaintenance as -well.

The -MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Theymay contribute towards the maintenance alsoif they like. We are not asking for any-thing in the Bill to give local authoritiespower to strike extra rates.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: They will sitrikethem all the same.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: No.Tn eases where we have had requests fromthe local authorities we understand that theyaire prepared, out of the rates collected bythem, to pay interest and sinking fund onone-half of the capital cost of the institution.They say they will be able to do this with-out increasing their rates.

Mir. Sampson: Many of the road boardsare already on their maximum rating power.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Theyhare not struck any extra rate. I do notknow of any road board that is likely toapply to have a hospital built solely for it-self. Even if that were so, the board wouldbe in a position to meet the obligation re-presented by interest and sinking- fund onlone-half of the capital cost, out of the rates.There. are districts where five local authori-tiesl are interested in one hospital. Four ofthem have unanimously carried resolutionsasking- that the conditions that have beenoffered to and complied with by Katanningiand Collie, and which will he complied within three other districts when this Bill goesthrough, should come into operation withrespect to them. One local authority re-fused. There may be ;ome ceause for theobjection, hut I do not know it. I cannotsee what logical objection can be raised tothe proposal. All the arbitrarv power I amasking for in the Bill is that where Such athin.- happens the Minister may compelother local authorities to pay their quotatowards the interest and sinking fund of thecapital cost of the institution.

Mr. Sampson: Is it really the duty ofthe local authority to look after roads?

The MIfNISTER FOR HEALTH: It isa,, much the duty of a local authority, be it

[23 AUGUST, 1927.] 529

municipal council or road board, to lookafter its nick as ir is to look after its roads.

Mr. Marshall: Where is there a roadboard that does not take over health mattersin its own district7

Mr-. Sampson: We should make provisionfor funds, and not look to the local authori-ties for the money.

The IMINISTER FOR HEALTH: TheBill also includes the Old Men's Home, andthe Old Women's Home at Fremantle. Atpresent we have no legislation governingeither of those institutions. They are underthe same 31inister, and always have been.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Do you expectthe road board to look after them?

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH : No.All I am asking is that the Minister shallhe given some statutory authority over bothinstitutions. At presenit he has none. It isnot advisable that we should go on anylonger controlling and running- those homeswithout statutory' authority to do so.

Holl. Sir James Mitchell: You give theinmates 5s. lid, worth of food every daywithout statutory' authority.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Weare giving thema better food than the hon.member gave them when he was in office,and there are fewer complaints now thanthere were then.

Mr-. Mann: No notice is taken of the com-plain~ts now.

Mr. Latham: We do Dot go there to findout whether frozen meat is given to the in-mates.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Thatinterjection is uncalled for.

Mr. Latham: That is what dlid happen.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Mem-

bers of the visiting committee report to memuch more frequently now than they didwhen the previous -Minister was in chargeof those homes. I am advised that one ortwo of the members of that committee makefrequent visits to the 'Old Men's Home dur-ing meal hours. The reports we receive aremost favourable. Quite recently three ofthe old men came to Perth, and waited for211 hours with the object of interviewingmue. When they saw me all they wanted tosay was that the mecals provided for themwere better than they had been in the past.They were well satisfied.

The Premier: All these departments havebeen e-reatlv improved since the hon. memberleft.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: There has beeninure to say about them.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: TheBill sets out that the department shall pro-vide, when asked to do so, uniform sets ofregulations and rules for the government ofhospitals. At present each hospital com-nmittee can have a set of rules to suit itself.These vary with each institution. The ma-jority of the hospitals have asked us to makethis provision in the Bill, so that the de-partment may compile a uniform set of rulesfor the government of commjittee- controlledinstitutions.

Mr. Marshall: I would not like too agree-to have rules framed in Perth for the gov-ernment of hospitals far rimoyed fromPerth.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Thebon. member is mistaken iu the matter.

Mr. Marshall: I hope so.The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: We

are not going to lay down precisely how eachhospital shall be run. Each hospital comn-m~ittee will be a body corporate. It will have.the right to manage its own institution withtwo exceptions, namely, that we claim theright to inspect or visit the institutions ifwe so desire, and again if we so desire it,to have an audit of accounts. Outside ofthat each hospital committee will be a bodyon its own aiff will manage its own affairs.

Mr. Chesson: No commjittee will objectto that.

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Mostof the committee-run hospitals have asked tobe provided with a set of rules. We willprovide those rules, but if the hospital coin-mittee inl which the member for Murchisonis interested, does not desire to fall in withthe idea, we will not compel them to do so.The last thing, the Bill provides for dealswith instances wvhere medical funds are inexistence. In the case of most of the com-mittee hospitals on the goldfields and in thetimber districts, the principal source of in-come is the medical fund which is controlledby the workers in the district. They payso much a wveek for the right to have hospitaltreatment for themselves, and their wivesand families in some instances. The con-ditions vary in accordance with the benefitsjobtained. The Bill provides for the en-couragemnent of medical funds everywhere.Wherever medical funds exist, the pricecharged to patients varies. Most of the hos-pital committees give a reduction to thosewho are on a medical fund, which amountsto so much a day. We are providing in the

[ASSEMBLY.]

Bill that where medical funds exist, thosewho contribute shall have a definite reduc-tion of 20 per cent. on the ordinary charges.I should like to see medical fauds of thatdescription associated with hospitals through-out the Stat.

Mr. Mann: Will that apply to friendlysocietiesI

The MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Yes,if they so desire. Friendly societies haveformed medical funds in agricultural dis-tricts, and by arrangement with the manage-ment of these funds we give contributors. toit a reduction at our Government hospitals.The railway employees have for, I think,the last 15 years received a reduction infees for their members at the Perth lies-pital on account of the possession of a medi-oat fund. I wish to encourage that spiritwherever possible. Men should have induce-ments to become members of medical funds.Wherever medical funds are provided, thereis to be a reduction of 20 per cent. on thescale of fees charged to ordinary patients.This is purely a machinery Bill dealing withthe management of hospitals only, exceptthat, as I have stated, it gives local authori-ties legal power to contribute towards inter-est and sinking fund for the building ofnew institutions. I move-

That the Bill bie now readi a second time.

On motion by Mr. Sampson, debate ad-journed.

BILL - NORTHAM MUNICIPAL ICEWORKS ACT AMENDMU'?T.

Second Reading.

THE PREMIER (Hon. P. Collier-Boulder) [8.47] in moving the second read-ing said: This is quite an innocuous littleBill. It has to do with the Northaminmuni-cipal ice works. Ia 1921 an Act was passedauthorisin g the municipality of Northam toraise a loan of £:5,000 for the purTpose Ofestablishing ice works. During the past fiveor six years the town of Northam has pro-gressed so greatly that the works in ques-tion are now found to he insufficient. There.fore it is desired to duplicate the works;end to do it speedily so that they may beready, together with additional cool storage..for the coming summer. The Bill reallyauthorises the municipality of Northam toraise an additional £4,000, subject to theusual conditions. I believe they are wellon the way with the works now, having to

sonic extent anticipated Parliamentaryapliroval. I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

HON. SIR JAMES MITCHELL (Nor-thoim) (8.48]: In supporting the Bill I maymention that the Northamn iceworks have,strange to say, paid v-ery well indeed, show-ing a considerable profit. The ice plant isnow altogether insufficient for the growingtown of Northanm, a highly importantcentre. The works serve Northamn withice, and also supply ice to a good manypeople in the hack country. It is now de-sired to double the output of ice and alsoto double the cool storage accommodation.Therefore an additional sum of £E4,000 is re-quired. YN'orthamn has been particularly for-tunate in the nianagement of its iceworks,which, as 1 pro;viously mentioned, have re-turned ai considerable profit.

The Minister for M12ines : Last summnerthey could not make sufficient ice forNortham requirements.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: Oh yes.The M1inister for M1ines: Did they not get

some ice from Kalgoorlie?11r. E. B. JTohnston: They send ice all

over the wheat belt.Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: The cool

storage is used by farmers and other individ-uals, and in many respects proves advantag-enus. I am indeed glad that the Premierhas brought down the Bill so early in thesession. The 'Northama municipality want toget on with the work in order to be readytonmeet the needs of the comingc- summer. Asgthe Premier said, they have anticipated ap-proval to some extent. The necessary noticehas been given of intention to borrow, andthe ratepayers will deal with the matter inthe o'rdinary way; t-hat is to say, the rate-payers will have to approve the expenditureeven if the Bill is passed.

Qncstioo put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

BILL-PERMANENT RESERVE.Second Reading.

THE PREMIER (Hon. P. Collier-Boulder) [8.51] in moving the second read-ing- said: Although the title of the Bill isa Permanent Reserve Bill, the measure reallyhas to dto wvith the head office of our StateSavings 'Bank. In the Act passed last %es-sion power was given for the use of funds

[28 AUGUST, 1927.] 531

.to purchase land and erect buildings. Thepresent headquarters of the bank in Hay-street, I think it will be agreed, are some-what dilapidated and antiquated.

Mr. M1ann: They are unsuitable.'The PREMIER: I believe they were orig-.

inally the Legislative Council chamber.Mr. E. B. Johnston: Legislative Assembly.The PREMIER: They were remodelled

in order to meet the bank's requirements,but the volume of business transacted therehas now grown so much that the building isentirely unsuited for the purpose. In adih-tion, seeing that Perth has been Practicallyrebuilt during the past eight or 10 years-even fairly substantial buildings haviggiven way to new and more commodiouspremises-we consider that the State shouldnot lag behind in the matter of its publicbuilding-s in the capital city.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: And in the country.The PRHEMIER: Yes. Incidentally I may

remark that since the passing, of the Actgiving, authority to purchase land and erectbuildings, twvo or three buildings have beenin course of erection, and that it is intendedto follow the policy of the bank providing,in the progressive and growing towns of thecountry, its own buildings rather than carryon ia the manner of past years. The presentheadquarters do not provide sufficient an-coininodation either for the bank's clients orfor its staff. As many as 1,100 clients do1business ait the establishment daily. I anmpleased to say that the bank's op~rationshave greatly increased in recent years, due,I believe, in sonie measure to the advertising,campaign launched during the past 1 2months. Whether that has had any consid-erable influence on the bank's business ornot-

Mr. Davy: You take unlimited amountsnow'.

The PREMIER : Yes. From whatevercause it may arise, it is certainly gratifyingthat the volume of the bank's business hasgrown and is growing substantially. Not

more than £1,000 was expended on the ad-vertising campaign for the whole year, andI am sure wve have got il] our expenditureback.

MrI. Sampson: You put up) some veryforceful advertisements.

The PREMIER: T believe the successattained was due mainly to advertisementsinserted in certain provincial papers.

Mfr. Mann: The money was judiciouslyspent.

The PRMIER: A wise selection wasmade of journals in which to advertise. In1920 the number of the bank's accounts was164,000, and this had increased in 1927 to225,000, or an increase in the seven yearsof 61,000. During the same seven years thedeposits increased from £6,070,000 in 1920to £7,095,000 in 192-7, or an increase in thoseseven years of £1,014,000. Those increasesI regard as most gratifying. During thepast two years the increase has been moresignificaut still. The number of accountshas grown fronm 205,000 to 225,000, an in-crease of 20,000: and during the sameperiods the deposits have increased from£5,832,000 to £7,095,000, or an increase of£1,262,000. The amount standing to thecredit of depositors in 1920 was £5,784,000and in 1927 £61,965,000, ;n increase in thoseseven years of £C1,180,000. The increaseduring the past two years has been £994,000,or almost half a million Pounds annually.

31r. Davy: It is very handy.The PREMIER: Very handy indeed. It

is now desired that the bank should acquireland in the city and erect promises of itsown. It is thought that an up-to-date build-ing- consisting perhaps of six or sevenstoreys mnight be erected, with sufficient ac-commodation to meet the requirements ofother departments, which of course wouldpay rent for floor space to the savingsbank. In that wvay the pressure on accent-inodation in some other departments wouldbe relieved.

lion. Sir James 'Mitchell: Is that pro-posed ?

The PREMNER: 'Nothing has been de-cided yet. This has been considered, butnothing has been decided definitely.

Mr. Thomson: This might be an oppor-tunity of bringing the whole of your officestinder one roof.

The PREMIER: It would help in thatdirection, as will be apparent when I indi-cate the situation of the block on which itis proposed to erect the savings bank build-ing. The difficulty was to find a suitablesite which would be central, and not too ex-pensive if private property bad to be ac-quired. However, it is thought that the siteselected will meet all requirements. Thatsite is known as the old police court, situ-ated in Barrack-street between Hay-street'and St. George's-terrace. It lies betiweenthe present Town Hall and the Governmentoffices.

[ASSEMBLY.]

M1r. Mann: That land wvas once promisedto the Perth City Council.

The PREMIER: The buildings now onit are the Tourist Bureau and the ElectoralDepartment, and a few others. As I say, itis a very fine block of land lying betweenthe Town Hall and the Treasury buildings.It has a frontage to Barrack-street of 154links with a depth of 152 links.

Mr. Angelo: Could additional storeys beadded to the present Government offices?

The PRE'MIER: I amu not sure on thatpoint.

Mfr. Angelo: It would look rather un-gainly to have a 6-story building erectedalongside the existing offices.

The PREMIER: That may be so, but Ido not know whether additional storeys couldbe erected as the hon. member suggests.

Mr. Angelo: It would be worth inquiringinto.

The PREMIER: Yes. I do not favoursky-scrapers in a city, but the demands foraccommodation may necessitate buildings ofthat description. The present buildings areentirely unsuitable. They are not modern,neither are they uip to date. Considerablealterations have been effected since the oldpost office buildings were taken over by theState Government. Hon. members who havevisited some of the departments located inthat building will be aware that the accom-modation is not what it should be.

Mr. Marshall: The Lands Department isa -regular rabbit-warren.

The PREMIER: Yes, and particularlythe Lands Titles office. That part of thebuilding 'reflects no credit upon any Parlia-mnent or any Government.

Mr. C. P. Wanshrough: There is a lot ofwaste spate.

The PREMIER : Yes. I have alreadygiven the frontage and depth of the block.The depth is 152 links where the block ad-joins the existing Government Offices but ithas a depth of 206 links on the Town Hallside. That is to say, the depth is greater onthe Town Hall side than on the Treasurybuilding side. In area the block compris.es1 rood 6 perches.

Mr. Sampson: Roughly it is about 100 ft.square.

The PIREMIER: Yes. It is a fine blockof laind. The depth would be S links longerthan the depth of the existing Town Hallbuilding. The departments accommodatedin the existing building, for which provision

will have to be made elsewhere dluring theconstruction period, are the Electoral De-partmtent, the Immigration Department, theTourist Bureau, and the Council of Indus-trial Development. As I mentioned earlier,it is proposed to erect a building that willbe much larger than is necessary to meet therequirements of the State Savings Bank,and therefore accommodation for those de-partmnents will be found in the new build-ing.

Mr. Angelo: Would not the old postoffice chamber make a good banking cham-ber, and new public offices could then bebout on the site you have indicated? Thepost office chamber would do admirably forbanking purposes.

The PEIER: Yes, but it is very use-fully employed now for revenue collecting.If we adopted the hon. member's sugges-tion, it would mean that the purposes forwhich the chambpr is used now would haveto be provided for in the new building.

Mr. Angelo: That is so.

The PREMIER: The hon, member willrecognise that if we erect a new building,we shall be able to provide space and ac-commodation to meet requirements betterthan we could in the old post office build-ing.

Mr. Angelo: There seems to ha a lot ofwaste space there.

The PREMIUER: I do not think so. Theold post office chamber is fully utilised, andan immense volume of business is transactedthere daily. That will be patent to any hon.member who pays a visit to the premises.

Mr. C. P. Wanslirough: At any ratethere is space for two floors wasted over-head.

The PREMIER: The building is welloccupied now. We have been searching foraccommodation to house Government depart-mients for years past. N~kothing has been de-cided so far, hut certainly we cannot go onmuch long er without nroviding additionalaccommodation for the Land Titles Depart-ment. It may be that the old building nowused by the savings bank can be taken downand a new building erected there. I do notknow whether the foundations will permitof additions to be made.

Hlon. Sir James Mitchell: It would notdo. You would have to pull the inside outof the existing huildfflgs.

The PREMIER: Yes.

j23 AUGUS, 1927.] 3

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchell: You could iiotconvert the old premises into a modernbsuilding.

The PREMIVIER: In any case the build]-ing where the Lands Department is accom-modated now in Cathedral-avenue, extendsto Hay-street and it was intended to con-tinue the building- along Hay-shreet towardsthe Town Hall, because it was left in anunfinished state on the savings bank side.

Mr, Corboy: The present building is arabbit-warren.

The PREMIER: This will afford an op-portnnity for the, erection of a substantialbuilding for the savings hank, a buildingthat will be worthy of the part the bank isplaying iii the development of the State.We can also provide for the erection of asutbstantial building where the old savingsbank is now situated. If that were done,it would overcome much of the difficultynow experienced in finding accommodationfor the various dlepartments.

Mfr. Thomson: It is to he hoped that what-ever is (lone will form part of a comprehen-sire scemne.

The PREMIER: I do not know that itis possible to design anything more compre-hensive for that block.

Mr. Thomson:, No, but to make thebuilding part of at comprehensive scheme.

The PREIIIER: There is also the blockwhere the University is now hecated. TheUniversity authorities contemplate transfer-ring entirely to the Crawley site in twvo years'time. The block at present occupied bythe University is a large one, havingfrontages to Hay-6treet, Irwin-street, andSt. George's-terrace. It wvould be very suit-able for the erection of large Governmentoffices, but the suggestion has been made tothe Government that an exchange of thatblock might be made with the Universitypeople for 2.5 or .30 acres of University en-downment land in Subiaco. That exchangewould be made for the purpose of erectinga new general hospital. In all, the Univer-sity has about 90 acres of endowment landsfronting upon the Nedlands train track andopposite King's Park. That is conven-iently- situated, andl it is suggested that itwouild be suitable for a new hospital.

Hon. G. Taylor: That is a new generalhospital.

The PREMIER: Yes. If that exchangewere effected, it would mean that the Uni-versity could derive some revenue from the

block by the erection of shops and otherbuildings, and it would be a source of an-nuaql income to rhe University.

Mr. Thomson:- Does the Irwin-streetblock belong to the University?

The PREMIER: No. It is Governmentproperty and will revert to the Governmentas soon as the University is transferred.The suggestion is to give that block to theUniversity in exchange for portion of theendowment lands; at Subieco for hospitalpurposes. The block I have been describingis a Class A reserve; hence the necessity forPa-rliamentary authority to utilise it for anypurpose. It is desired to exempt the blockfrom the possibility of any ordinary sale.That would probably defeat the end we havein view. If it were sold by public auctionand purchased by other people, it wouldpass out of our control. It is intended inissuing the title to provide for a permanentright-of-way giving access to the rear of thepresent Government offices. but the newbudding will be erected over the right-of-way. The bank must have a title before itcan invest its own money in a building suchas it is proposed to erect.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The £40,000would go to revenue.

The PREMIER: It could go to revenue.Hon. Sir James Mitchell:, It could go to

the Lands Department.The PREMIER: That would be another

wvindfall!H~on. Sir James Mitchell: It would be a

payment to yourself of the £40,000 involved.The PREMIER: If it is thought the

money should not be made available to helpthle surplus, wre could use it in some otherdirection.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: Why not give it tothe bank in exchiange for the present site?

The PREMI1ER: But it belongs to theGovernment.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell, The savingsbank belongs to the Government.

The PREMIER: The whole thing be-longs to the Government. It is as broad asit is long. Any profits derived from theoperations of the savings bank come to theTreasury.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The bank doesnot make much profit.

The PREMIER: Some good investmentshave been made lately.

Hon. Sir Jame-, Mitchell: The old invest-ments did not show much return. Of course,

533

[ASSEMBLY.]

I kniow money can be borrowed at a low rateof interest for public works.

The PREMIER: The bank is getting bet-ter rates of interest now. The block in ques-tion has a frontage of approximately 100feet, and it is valued by the laud resumption-officer at.£400 a foot, giving a total value ofP40,000.

lion. Sir James Mitchell: The building ispot of much value, as it will hare to he re-nioved.

The PREMIER: That is so, but that isthe value placed upon the land by the lundresumption officer.

M1r. Thomson: That is cheap.The PRE2HTER: It does not seem cheap

having regard to the price land is bringingin the neighbourhood. I do not know whatprice land in Barrack-street is bringing newtbut in Hay-street land costs between £000and £800 a foot. There can be no doubtthat the Barrack-street block would be idealfor the headquarters of the bank- Besidesbeing an ornament to the architecture of thecity, the building would be centrally situ-ated and undoubtedly premises do much toattract business. Most people realise that,when they see the enormous sums spent bycompanies and firms in the erection of sub-ptantial buildings. Anyone who has been toMelbourne recently must have been surprisedat the buildings that have been erected. 1,-who know 'Melbourne well, was greatly suir-prised during my recent trip at The sp-ectacleof the magnificent buildings that have beenerected. Government savings banks havebeen erected in various parts of the city._

MNr. Lindsay: The finest one of all is inSyVdney.

The PREMIER: I have not seen it, but inIMelbourne a splendid savings hank buildinghias been erected in Eli zabeth -street and an-other one in Spencer-street.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: There is another inSwanston-street, too.

The PREMIER: Yes. It shows that it isconsidered good business to erect fine pre-mises. A shoddy uninviting place such asthe premises where our savings hank businessis carried on now, does not tend to attractpatronage.

Mr. Sampson: At present it is a ease ofbusiness in spite of premises.

The PRENIER: That is what is amountsto.

Mr, Davy: It would he very difficult tofit in any building with the neighbouringstyle of architecture.

The PREMIILt: That is so. You coildniot fit in anything with the Town Hall, andthere is not much style at all on the narbo n-ing Treasury building. It is conspicuous forits lack of style.

Hon. Sir James IMitchell: It is highly re-spectable looking, and solid.

The PREMIER: It is indeed. Moreoverit is. a plave where many mighty men haveheld away ; al[though "I says it as shouldn't."Rut if a conspicuously fine building wereerected it would tend, having regard to itssurronldings, to be a great advertisementfor the Savings Bank. I know that wouldsgavour of desecration with some of amy oldfriends, so far as it might relate to thokTown IHall building There is a sentimentalregard for the old Town Hall building. Un-doubtedly -when you1 stand back and surveyit properly it is a very fine piece of archi-tecture. Of course it has been greatly im-p.-roved by those brilliantly lighted shopsinstalled along the front!

Mr. E. B3. Johnston: A piece of civic van-dalism!I

The PREMIER: I am not prepared totry to describe it. I should be immediatelyruled out of order if I were to express myfeelings about that desecration of the oldTown IHall corner. As for this money, inordinary circumstances it would be takeninto Lands revenue. I am not prepared tosay I would desire to take advantage of that.r think perhaps it might be earmarked forthe erection of the new building, or portionof that building on the present SavingsBank site. It would be a very large sum togo into revenue in one year from one par-ticular source.

Hon. Sir Jamies. )itchell: Yes, if you gotMOO0 per foot for the whole lot, it wouldmeet aill your difficulties.

Thme PREMIER: If we had disposed ofthat old corner in the lean years, whenwe were troubled with big deficits, we shouldhave wiped out the lot in one stroke. Butthen we should have had to go out into thepark and camp iii order to carry on thebusiness of the country, v In any event therewould not be very mnuch gain, because itwould cost an equal amount to erect a build-ing elsewhere. What I have in mind for themoment is that this £40,000 might be used asat contribution towards the new building onthe present site of the Savings Bank.

Mr. Angelo: Why not apply it towardsfinishing Parliament H1ouse?

[28 AUGUST, 1927.] 535

Tfhe L'IE2IWH : That is another matter,and one worthy of serious consideration.

Itoti. Sir James MIitcell: In the mean-tune we can let it go down into revenue, andg-et it out again when we want it.

Th le l'iEMIEHl Yes, we might put it in-to suspense in order that we might get it outat niced. I certainly think the idea of erect-ing new and upl to date headquarters fortile Bank will commend itself to everybody,and is long overdue.

Ilon. Sir James 'Mitchell: What will bethe cost of the building-f0O,000 I

Tfhe PREMIER: I have no idea. A sixor seven, storied building covering the wholeof that block would mean a very consider-able cost. A large part of the dloor spacewould be required for the Bank, of course,and if other Government departments werehoused there, they would have to pay rentto the Batik. I hope the Bill will be favour-ably received. I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

HON. SIR JAMES MITCHELL (Nor-thani) [9.20]. This is an. ingenuious way ofgetting revenue. The State Savings Batik,' aGovernment institution, occupying premisesin (Jovernment building-s, owned by the Gov-ernment, is to buy part of a Governmentbuildling for £40,000 arid pay the moneyto the Lands IDepartment, which means thatthe money will go into revenue. So the Gov-ernmnent is to sell to itself £40,000 worth ofits on land, converting the land into cash,and puittiing the cash into revenue.

The Premier: 'Unless we put [lie moneytowards the cost of the buildin..

lfaol. Si'- JAMES 'MiTCHELL: I do notknowv why we should change over from thepresent system. After all, the building oc-rallied by the Bank will be owned by theState. Whether it will be elected by theBank or from the Treasury funds, preciselythe same position wvill be arrived at.

The Premier: It could be erected fromthe Bank funds, and owned by the State.

Hon. Sir JAMES M1TCHELL: It will beowned by the State, anyhow. So, of course,in providing for the sale of this land by theGovernment to the Government we are notailtering- the position very much, except thatit will take from the funds of the SavingsBank £40O,000 onl which the Hank will not infuture earn interest; whereas, of course, ifit lends the money to the Government, in theordinary course of business the Government

[20]

will have to pay .5 per cent, onl that money.But by these means we wvill get M4,000 initorevenue, and will not have to pay interest tothe Batik onl that sum. Of course, it is onlyreasonable that the departments using thepremises of the Savings Bank should payrent. Even so, that only means that the rentwanders front the Treasury over to the Say-ings Baik and comes back to the Tfreasuryas profits from the Savings Batik. I do notobject to the Bill, but I object to the moneybeing paid into revenue. We bhould not sellour- own lands to ourselves and pocketthe money. That is wrong. This moneycertainly should not go into revenue. I donot care how much we legitimately get intorevenue, so long as it is not through in-creased taxation.

The Premier: I thiink the nioney shouldhe used for the building.

lion. Sir- JAMES 'MITCHELL: I thinkso. I liope when the building is erected itwill be a modern stuture, properly de-signied and equippied for economical working.I ant quite certain that if we built officesunder the inost approved plan we shouldsave very considerably in thle cost of adnmin-istration. Also, we should convetiience thepublic, who would not theni have to wanderall over the eountrY seeking the variousoffices. I believe the interest onl the cost of anew aid up to date building wvould be metby the leasing of those premises in Barrack-street. They cannot be converted into anlup to date building except at terrific cost;rot. they' consist of very' many small rooms,utterlyv inconvenient and unsuitable for thework of public departments. To-day Minis-ters are scattered all over the place. I do notsuppose the 'Minister for WVorks sees any ofhis colleag' ues, save those who happen tocome here for luncheon, and when hemeets them in Cabinet. Then the ChiefSecretary is stuck away half a mile from thePremier's office, and sto, too, are other Min-isters. That is very undesirable, and meansa great annual cost. The departments arealways looking for more accommodation.(God knows why* . Apparently ll[ are short ofaccommodation, no matter how many tem-porary' buildings, are put up about the place.It would be far better for the Premier tohave an up to date building, not too faraway from Parliament House. Of course itcould not be erected on any land the Gov-ernment have at present, for it would re-qluire a considerable area. It would be better

. ' I -I -I

536 [ASSEMBLY.]

to acquire ]and in the most suitable place ata reasonable rate.

Mr. E. B. Johnston: Some of that landin Irwin-street.

The Premier: I do not think the blockig big enough.

Hon. Sir JAMIES 'MITCHELL: Noa, nordo I think it is in the right position. I amnot going to say where I think The buildingshould be, but certainly it should be muchnearer to Parliament House than is tile ir-win-street block.

The Premier: Working- west :sloruz 3m-ray-street would be at suitable locality.

Hom. Si, JAMLES MIITCIIEI.L: But youjoust have a ioii~iderable area. For when wveset out( onl this work of pirovidinw buildingswe ought to obviate the scattering of de-pa rtments to all points of the corn-1a~s. To-day money is too valuable tohe put into buiildlings. We want all themoney, we have tor- inervaseti production anLincreased revenue for the State. Last yearour exports were less liv three millions thlanwvere our imports, which imeans that wre haveto increase our exports considerably. How-ever the position is that we C311 scarcelyafford to ii~Q even borrowed money for thiepurpose of erecting tliec new building.

The Premier: Still wre could acquire thleland before the prie- ges any higher.

Non. Sir JA-MES MITCHELL: Yei, butno more money should he spent on tempor-a'y huildin zs of any' kind just now.The buildinus we put Up are altogether un-suitable for the needs of a business of any

sr.Before more money is spent I hopethe matter wvill be inquired into, the costof building ascertained, and the probablerevenue from the magnificent site in Barrack-shreet estimated.

The Premlier: I heard] that some years ag-othe estimate of the rent from those buildingswould p~ay interest on the cost of all thenewv ofievs built el-ewbere.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I aimcertain that the rent we should get fromthose buildings, plus the economy, would paythe interest and sinking fund. I doa notknowv whether the Premier has been in theCommionweailth Bank in Sydney. That isanl up-to-date building- where the work isdone as cheapily, as possible. One does not-Ce boys running about with papers and filesand dashing up and down stairs. The ac-commnodation is provided over a limitedgrolud space. but the huildintr is so conven-

ient that the work is simplified and cheap-eited.

The Premier: The paiwages and corridorsof our old building are crowded with officersmoving front one place to another and halftheir timo is wasted.

Iion,. Sir JAWMES MITCHELLj: And thepublic e'xperienlce diflculty to find the iffil-cer they want.

'fI,. 3 linibter for Mlines: There i, one Ihave not found yet. I do not know %%*Iere.,ou Of them are housed.

I',,. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I .savenot bet,, informed that the Minister hasbeen missed.

The l'remier: Look at the }'orest Tc'-paitinemit and portion of the Lands andTitles offics.

Holl. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I sympa-thie with thle Minister for MVines if lie hasnot yet learnt to find his way about thlepremises.

The Minister for Mines: One needs a guideto find his way to the Titles Office after 4plm.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: Yes. ftis fortunate that our offices ale so well sit-noted. I think we t-ould do something withthem, ap~art fronm using them for the presentpurposes.

The Premier: I shall do nothing underthis nleaure, if it is agreed to, without con-,ulting, the House.

Hon. Sir -JAMES M1ITCHELL: The Sav'-ing-S Bank would haove to be located in agood position.

The Premier: Yes, and it could be sep-arated from the other Government officeswithout inconvenience.

Hon. Sir JAMES 3MiTCHELL: That isso. It is one institution that would haveto be kept apart. It is a businessquite independent from the ordinarywork of the Government. It would be asplendid site for the State, Savings Bank,and if we are to compete wvith the Common-wealth 'savings Bank we cannot afford tohide our light under a bushel. We musthave a decent building to house the StateSavings Bank. It is right that the £40,000should not go into revenue. I don not knowwhat the Premier will do with it.

Thle Premier: I think it should be usedfor building, for which loan funds would[otherwise have to lie raised.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I hopethat will not be done until the whole questionof the housing of departments has been in-vestigated. It would be a waste of money

[23 AuousT; 19271 3

to ,.:.opt a piecemeal puliley. I1 am glad thatthe State Savings Bank is doing so well.401 eurse the Act authorisiug an increasein ttoe limit to deposits must have had someeffect. Saivings Bank money is very usefulmioney.

Trhe Premier: I think our people are ap-preciating the State Savings Bank more andittwe every year.

Ilon. Sir JAMiES MITCHELL: But theypit-, tremendous amount of money into the( uianwealth Savings Bank. While theyp~ait* W0O,000 into the State Savings Bank,they paid S2,000,OO0l into the Commonwealth

Saings Bank.Mr. Thomnson: The Commonwealth Sev-

inr> Hanik has better facilities.Huon. Sir JA-.lIS MNITCHELL: It has

banking facilities that we have not got. Thenit ney that goe., into the State SavingsBank is us.,ed entirely in the State.

Mrb. Sampsn: The service of the State'Savines Banik is being imiprovedl all the.timne.

The Premnier: It dates fromt the momentwe danrted to advertise.

Hon. Sir JAMES MI1TCHELL: SavingsDank money is never quite as cheap as thepublic are inclined to think, because the bankhas to hold big, reserves and the expense ofrunning the iinstitution is considerable. Itis only right that small savings should hesafeguarded and that interest should 1)e paidon them. The money is useful to finaneaevelopment work. We shall have manydisco-ions on finance this session; in factthe s-ssion will be largely devoted to theconsideration of financial ittan, and so IReed not speak at mutch greater length to-night. I am glad to know that we have rotso much money in the last two years. Whenthe Commonwealth Government raised theirIoan, in Australia, our Savings Bank suf-fered. Every loan used to absorb aboutX150.000l, which kept our Savings Bnk ver3short of funds. Now that has changed he-eiin*c tie Federal Government are not rats-intr o many loans. T hope the Premier willnot take this money into revenue. I am gladto hear that the Savings Bank is to be pro-perl1y housed. Tt is an institution that shouldhave proper banking- accommodation and theTren~.urer should he protected by the pro-vi-ionl of miodern strong mooms.

The Premier: Of conrse the Titles Officeis, falking great risks with its strong rooms.

Hon. Sir- JAMNES MITCHETLT: But thatoffice is better provided for than any otherGovernment department.

The Minister for Justice: [f there was afire, that part would be flooded, with. conse-quent damage to the securities, as there is nooutlet for the water.

lion. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: The at-e:oimodation is unsuitable and proper pro-vision should lie miade for safeguarding therecords and other documents that naturallyniust be preserved. I dare say this is one ofthe few Bills to be introduced that I canwhole-heartedly support.

The Premier: You will support the nextone.

Hron. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I do notknow what the next one is, but I think I canlay the Premier a shade of odds that I amnot likely to support it. There are not manyon the list that I can sup port, but the onebefore us is an excep~tion.

(In motion by Mr. Thomson, debate ad-journed.

BILL-LAND TAX AND INOOMETAX.

&Second If coding.

THE PREMIER (Hon, P. Cofller-Boulder) [9.41l] in moving the second read-ing said:- This is a Bill that the Leader ofthe Opposition can and will sepport.

Ron. Sir James Mitchell: You cannot ex-pect us to deal with. all these Bills on Thurs-day.

The PRE-AiER: I am prepared to allowmembiers reasonable time.

Rion. Sir James Mitchell: I feel like mov-ing to postpone it. Had 1 known I mighthave spoken longer on the previous Bill.

The PREMIER: This is4 a mneasure with-out which we should have to shut up thewhole work of the State.

Hon. G. Taylor: And this place, too.Hon. Sir James MHitchell: It would be bet-

ter for this lplace than for the whole countryto shut tip.

The PREMIER: This, is the usual taxingmeasure that has to be brought down everyyear. I do not know what the reason. is, hutfor many years Parliament has; not givenGovernments a free hand in the matter oftaxation. It has granted taxation only an-nually. Perhaps that is wise in order thatParliamnent might retain its hold on the purse.especially as regards taxation.

Mr. Corhony: Treasurers as: a rule haveuesil the annualt chance to increase taxation.

The PREMIIER: Oh no.

537

538 [ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. Thomson: You need to be careful.The PREMIER: There have been times

when Treasurers have felt compelled, owingto the circumstances of the State, to increasetaxation. Let me at once relieve the mindsof members and assure them that I do notpropose to increase taxation this year.

Honl. Sir James Mitchell: We propose todecrease it.*The PREMIER: I tbaught I was meet-

itug the House very generously by decidingto carry on with the same land tax andi in-come tax that operated last year.

Haln. Sir James Mitchiell: We will showvyolt dirrerentl 'v.

The PREMIER: I am sure the lion. mem-her will support the Bill. It is merely a Billto impose the tax. Whien I was in opposi-tion it was one of the Bills I always sup-ported.

Hon. G. Taylor: Y'ou knew the value of it.

The PRE'MIER: I do not remember oneoccasion on which I opposed the memberfor Northamn when he asked the House forthe annual land tax and income tax. litfact, I believe I went to his rescue occasion-ally when there were somec members onl myside that were rather dissatisfied.

Mr. Thomson: You should come to ourrescue now.

Honl. Sir James Mitchell: I do not re-member those occasions, but I know that youopposed a tax wvhen 1 was in olile and in-troduced it yourself when you were in office.

The PREMIIER : I am surprised to hearthat. Treasurers rarely find themselves inthe position of having to propose what theypreviously Opposed.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: It happenedtwice.

The PREMI1ER: Of course one sees thingsfrom a different angle when on this side ofthe House as compared with that side of theHouse. There is no change in the tax thisyear. It is proposed to re-enact the landtax and income tax that operated last year.

Holl. Sir James Mitchell: Do you proposeto collect both land and income tax from theagri43lturistsl

The PREMIER: That matter is dealtwith in the Assessment Act and I cannotdeal with it now.

Hon. G. Taylor: That is the measure youshould bring- before the House.

The PREMIER: This is purely a taxingmeasureC: it merely g ives the Governmentauthority to levy the tax.

Mr. Thomison: And you will levy it allright.

The PREMIIER: The question of the pay-meat of both land and income tax by agri-culturists is a highly controversial one thatcan he deal with only under the AssessmentAct.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: Then we shallhave anl Assessment Act Amendment.

The PREMIER: Let us get this Billthrough and then wve might consider thequestion of rev-iewing the Assessment Act.Whenever the Assessmentt Act has beenbi-ought before the House for considerationit has occupied no end of time. In fact,the two measures that have evoked mostprotracted discussions have been amendmentsof the Licening Act and of the Land Taxand laconic Tax Assessment Act.

,Mr. Ferguson: It is high time we ladanothier go at it.

Mr. Thlomlson: I think thle lion, membershould be given all opportunity of dealingwith it.

The PR EMZIER : I amt sure that membersgetnerally wilJ support this Bill. Althoughsome may h e inclined to regard the incometax as Clessixc, I do think it is fortunatethat it shlows a vcn considerable reductionov-er what it was in former years. Of course,the 331 :1 per cent. reduction in taxation isdue in a blge measure to the money thatwe received on account of the disabilitiesgrant. A~t the end of the next three yearsit is possible that the Treasurer of the daymnay have to increase taxation.

Hfon. G. Taylor: That will be hard uponthe new Treasurer.

The IPREMIER: It certainly will.Hion. Sir Jamnes Mitchell: He can always

sell a few more blocks of land.'The PREMIER: I ani rather sorry 1

initiated that scheme. This may be adoptedby subsequent Treasurers as thbe means ofobviating the necessity for increasing Inna-lion. We are, however, fairly secure in themnatter of taxation for the next three Years.

Thajt the Bill be now tead a second time.

On motion by Honl. Sir James Mitchell,debate adjourned.

Ifouse adjourned at 9.48 p.m.