[5 OCTOBER, 1948.1 1465

recommit the measure here or sponsor itin another place.

Hon. A. 11. Panton: I would iatber re-co-tmnit it here.

The MINISTER FOR EDUCATION:If the hon. member does not agree to mysuggestions I shall have to oppose the newc1luSe.

Hon. A. H. PANT ON: I agree to theMlinister's. request. I ask leave to withdrawthe proposed new clause.

New clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Title-agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

TegrzfatitxeAsm1'(

Tuesday, 5th October, 1948

CONTENTS.

Questions : Shipping, as to pilfering atFremnantle ... .. ... ..

Black Diamond coal leases, as to la-111111 for compensation ..* ..

Kindergartens and health centres, as topermits to build... ..

Railways, as to late running of suburbantrains, etc................ ...State Public Debt, as to security holders

Petrol rationing, as to producing sub-stitute spirit .. .. ..

Liquid Fuel Control Board, as to termina-tion of officials services ... ..

Betting-(a) as to Introduction of iegis-lation.......... ......... ...

(b) as to prosecutions for obstructionBills : Workers' Compensation Act Amend-

meat, recoin............ ....Factories and Shops Act Amendment, 2r.,

Corn., report.......... .... ....Licensing Act Amendment, 2r., Corn.,

report..... .............. ...Now Tractors, Motor Vehicles, and

Fencing Materials Control, Council'samendments.......... .... ....

Feeding Stuffs Act Amendment, 2r,Coin...... .............. ...

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ActAmendment, 2r., Coin.

Marriage Act Amendment, Con. ..Adjournment, special ... ..

Page

1465

1465

1466

1488146

146

1486

14681467

1487

148

1471

1472

1478

147914861495

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

(62]

QUESTIONS.

SHIPPING.

As t o Pilfering at Fremantle.

M1r, C RAYDEN asked the Minister repre-senting tbe Minister for Police:

(1) What was the extent of pilferingfrom interstate and oversea ships at Fre-mantle dluring the past financial year?

(2) On a percentage basis, to what extentwas it higher than in 1943-44?

(3) It the information in question No.(2) is not available, will he give what in-formation is available on the extent of pil-fe ring in the periods mentioned?

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING re-plied :

The only data available is as follows:-(1) Fifty-five convictions for stealing,

attempted stealing, receiving and unlawfulpossession.

(2) Twenty-three per cent, lower than in1943-44.

(3) Answered by No, (2).

BLACK DIAMOND COAL LEASES.

As to Liability for Compensation.

Mr. MARSHALL asked the Ministerrepresenting the M1inister for Mines:

InI view of the statement matde by theMinister for Mines in "The West Aus-tralian' that the reason for returning Wel-lington Location 1128 and Coal Mining(Leaseu Nos. 256 and 304 to the AmalgamatedCollieries of W.A. Ltd. after acquisition bythe State Electricity Commission was thelarge amount of compensation which wouldhave been payable by the State, would heinformi the House:-

(a) Upon what grounds would compensa-tion have been payable?

(h) What would hare been the approxi-mate amount involved?

The INNISTER FOR HOUSING re-plied:

(a) Under the provisions of the StateElectricity Commission Act and the PublicWorks Act, an amouint equal to the esti-mated profit on the estimated coal contentof the leases, also compensation for resump-tion 0f freehold property.

(h) The actual amount involved has notbeen estima ted.

146~6 [ASSEMBLY.]

KINDERIGARTENS AM) HEALTHC ENT R ES.

As to Permits to Build.

Mr, RAlDY asked the Minister tar Hous-inug:

(1) flave any permits been granted forlnilding- kindergartens or infant healthcentres in the past year 21

(2) If the answer to Question No, (1)is "YeA," will he state the localities forwhich permits were granted?

The MINISTER replied:

(1) Yes.

(2) Kalg-oorlie. A permit -was grantedfor the demolition of an Army building andits re-erection as two kindergartens in.Kal-goorlie.

RAILWAYSAs to Laite Running of Suburban Trains,

etc.

M1r. BRADY asked the M1inister for Rail-ways:

In view of the continued erratic railwayservice in the Eastern sutburbs, as instancedby the -omission of the 0.10 p.m. Perth toMidland Junction train on Tuesday, the25th September, will he state the findingsof the Departmental Comnmittee referred toin his reply VS questions on the 26ltbAugust!

The M1INISTER replied:The 9.101 p.m. train to Midland Junction

is a continuation of the 8.15 p-ni. fromFremantle which train was delayed on ac-count of a fatality at West Perth.

The committee referred to is examiningthe perforniances of all locomotives and itstask is not yet completed.

STATE PUBLIC DEBT.

As to Security Holders.

Mr. M1ARSHALL asked the Treasurer:(1) What was the total public debt of the

State on the 30th June, 1048?

(2) Of this total, what amount was heldby security holders of all kinds -within theState of Western Australia 9

(3) What was the total amount held bysecurity holders of all kinds outside of Wes-tern Auistralia but within the Common-wealth?

(4) What was the total amount held bysecurity holders outside the Commonwealthof Austialia?

The TREASURER replied:

(1) £C100,274,741 4s. 7d.(2) and (3) Loans are raised by the

Commonwealth and no information is avail-able as to the domicile of security holders inWestern Australia's share of the loans,

(4) £41,023,405 l~s. 3d.

PETROL RATIONING.

As to Producing Substitute Spirit.

'Mr. B' ADY asked the Minister for In-dustrial Development.

In view of the petrol restrictions operat-ig througlhout the 'State, will he state-

(1) Are experiments being made at thewood di~tillation plant at Wundowie to pro-duce' a substitutb?

(2) If the answer to question 'No. (1) is"No,'' will he institute inquiries regardingthe present by-products being used for thispurpose !

The MI11NISTER replied:

(1) No.

(2) Yes.

LIQUID FUEL CONTROL BOARD).

As to Termination of Official's Services,

Mr. GRAHAM asked the Minister forTransport:

In view of the imiportant public positionheldl by the ex-secretary of the Liquid FuelControl Board, and the suddenness withwhich his eervices were terminated, will hegive detailed reasons for this step, and willhe indicate whether there is any intentionof further action being taken in the mnatter?

The MINISTER replied:

-No information regarding this matter canbe given at the present time.

BETTING.

(a) As to Introduction of Legislation.

iMr. GRA-HAM1 asked the Attorney Gen-eral:-

Is it intended to introduce legislation thissession to deal with the question of betting?

The 'ATTORNEY GENERAL replied:This matter will be given consideration.

[5 OCTOBER, 1948.J 46

(bi) As to Prosecutions for Obstruction.

Mr. GRAHAM asked the Minister repre-senting the Minister for Police:

(1) What niumber of traffic obstructionoffence,;, for which charges have been laid,have occurred in each suburb of the metro-politan area, respectively, during the pres-ent year?

(2) What was the number heard before

(a) Perth Police Court;(b) Fremantle Police Court;{c) Midland-Junction Police Court?

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING re-plied:-

(1) Scarborough, 1; Osborne Park, 1;Bayswater, 1; Armnadale, 2; Cannington, 2;Mt. Hawthorn, 2; Victoria Park, 2; NorthBeach, 31; Gosnels, 3; Bassendean, 3;Queens Park, 6; Claremont, 6; ShentonPark, 11; Carlisle, 13; 'North Perth, 13;Giuitdford, 20; Subiaco, 22; Como, 35;Nedlands, 41; West Perth, 43; SouthPerth, 45; Wembley, 45; Highgate Hill,49; Maylands, 50; Leederville, 55; City,64; East Perth, 09; Inglewood, 95; Pal-myra, 3; North Freman tie, 4; Rocking-ham, 4; Canning Bridge, 6; Cottesioe, 6;,East Fremantle, '7; Beaconsfield, 10; SouthFremantle, 17; Fremantle, 29; MosmanPark, 17; Midland Junction, 154.

(2) Perth Police Court, 702;, FremantlePolice Court, 103; Midland Junction PolieCourt, 154. Total, 9.59.

BILL-WORKERS' COMPENSATION* ACT AMENDMENT.

iteconmnll.

On motion by the Minister for Education,Bill recommitted for the consideration ofa new clause.

In Committee.

Mr. Perkins in the Chair; the Ministerfor Education iu charge of the Bill.

New clause:The MINISTER. FOR EDUCATION:

Imove--That a new clause be inserted as follows-3A. The principal Act is amended by adding

.after the word "cases'' in Section 3, line 6,a serton as follow:-

3A. When at the time of the coming intooperation of the Workers' Compensation ActAmendment Act, 1948, a worker has been

entitLid to rece-ive weekly payments fur anypeia] tif total or partial inenpatity in at-eurdantep with the provisions of the WVorkers'Compensation Adt, 1912-1944, and that in-c:'pavity continue,% after that time, he shallfreni thatf time and during the continuanceoif that period, be entitled to pnymcnts inaccordance with the .provisions of the last-raen-ioned Act as amended by the first-mentiened Act, but nothing in the first-men imned Act shall he cmctrued sn as toentilic any such worker to any incrcn~e inIquch weekly paymenats maLde oir payable be-fore that time.

The member for Lee derville moved anamendment which I think was intended toimplemrent the same principles as are in-(lurled in this elau~e. I suggested to himthat I wns not entirely satisfied with thewording of his amendment as I thought itmight enable retrospectivity to be given topaymnents that had actually biven made be-fore thle passing of' the legislation. Ithouight his intention was that those pay-ient, should he increased only in respectiif personso who had been receiving- pay-ments under the present Act, hut that theywould he increased to conform to paymentsmade aifter the passing of this Bill. Thisamendment i% inteinded. to accomplish thatend.

Mr. FOX: If. a mian was injured twomonth.3 before the new Act came into being,or a man was injured four months after thenew Act camne into operation and wanted toapply for a9 lump sum payment, hlow wouldit he ralenlatedi'

The MINISTER FOR EDUCATION:This in a matter to which I have not givena great deal ot consideration but I do notthiuk the ans~wer presents any difficulty.If the lump sumn became payable, say fourmionths; after the passing of the Act, itwould he parable in accordance with theprovisions of the new Act. 4

Mr. Fox: What about one month after?'

The 'MINISTE'{ FOR EDUCATION:-It would apply to any period after the passing of the Act.

Hon. A. H. PANTON: This amendmentclears up the point I was endeavouring tomake when the Bill was in Committee, andY agree with the amendaient as moved bythe M1inister.

'New clause put and passed.

Bill again reported with a further amend-itienI.

146T

1468 [ASSEMBLY.]

BILL-FACTORIES AND SHOPSACT AMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 30th Septem-ber.I

HON. A. H. PARTON (Leederville)[4.45]: This Bill has been introduced atthe request of the High Commissioner forIndia in order to remove the discrimina-tion now shown against Indians. The sec-tion in the parent Act *hieh has evidentlycaused the trouble is as follows:-

26. No person of the Chinese or otherAsiatic race shall be-

(a) registered as the owner or occupier ofa factory unless he satisfies the Ministerthat he carried on the business which he pro-poses to c-arry on in such factory before thefirst day of November, one thousand ninehundred and three; or

I presume that was about the date ofthe Commonwealth Aliens Restriction Actwhich prohibited Asiatics from becong

perwanent residents of Australia. The sec-tion goes on to state-

(b) employed or engaged by the occupierof a factory in or about the factory, unlessthe occupier satisfies the inspector that suchperson was sa. employed or engaged in afactory on or immediately before the datelost aforesaid.

The Bill proposes to amend Section 26 byadding to it-

Providled that this section shall not apply

(1) any person of the Asiatic rate whois a natural-horn British subject and whosedomicile is in the State on the day of thevomnmencement of the Factories and ShopsAct Amendment Act, 1048, nor

(2) to any descendant of any person re-ferred to in the next preceding paragraph ifthe domicile of the descendant is in theState.

I am not opposed to the Bill hut there az-eone or two peculiarities about it. It seemsto me that in trying to overcome the diffi-culty of tile Indians the Minister has intro-duced a measure which throws the positionwide open to anly Asiatic irrespective ofnationality. I hanve not been able to getmu(-h information on the Bill, but 1 wouldlike to know from the Minister just whenan Asiatic 'cases to be an Asiatic if he isa natural-born British subject.

Thorp' are Chinese people living in Leeder-iii,' who haive children horn in Australia.

These youngsters are very bright but fromthe look of things they will he exempt fromthe provisions of the Bill, although I failto see whby they shbould have to be if they areBritish-born. There must be some reasonfor the Minister making this distinction al-though I have been unable to find it. Hewould have been well-advised to take a leaffrom the Mining Act which sets out theposition in a clearer way. Section 23 ofthat Act reads-

No ipiner 's right shall hoe issued to or heldby any Asiatic or African alien, nor to anyperson of Asiatic or African race claiming tohe a British surbject without the authority, inwriting, of the Minister first obtainod.

Section 24 states-No Asiatic. or African, alien shall hold any

interest by virtue of a mniner's right, nor shallany person of Asiatic or African race, claim-ing to be a Britsih subject, be entitled to holdny such interest without the authority, in

writing, of the Minister first obtained.

Those provisions have been in the Act foras long as I can remember. I tan recall aman of Indian extraction who is living some-where around Mt. Magnet-I think the mem-ber for Murchison would know him betterthan, I-who has endeavoured to become aleaseholder. I think the ease goes hack tothe days when Sir Edward Wittenoomn wasMinister for Mines. This Indian has beentrying to obtain a miner's right under theprovision which states that the Minister hasdiscretionary power. He has approachedevery Minister for Mines, including myself,and endh one hhs refused him. For theMinister to hove discretionary power in aease quelh as this is a far better proposalthan the provision outlined in the Bill. ThisIndian must be well over 80, or if he is nothe is ver 'y close to it, and up to date hehas been unsuccessful in obtaining a min-ing lease.

There are one or two points that I findpuzzling- in regard to the Bill; firstly, how aBritish-born subject remains an Asiatic, andif so, why*N the necessity for a British-born subject to be exempt from any Actso far as we arc concerned? I will be satis-fied if all Asiaties are exempted by the Hill-and there is no doubt that they will be--because that is not going to make muchdifference. My experience of the Asiaticswho came here prior to the passing of theAliens Restriction Act is that they have al-most died out. if the Minister goes down

[6 OCTOBER, 1948.1 46

to "Sunset" I think he will find there ar.some who are still alive, namely, some 601Chinese and one Japanese in the Asiaticward. I often wondered where they had allgone, but that is where they will be found,fat and well looked after. They are notdoing any harm to anybody down there. Isee no objection to the Bill as it is, but itdoes seem rather paradoxical to me.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Hon. A.V, R. Abbott-North Perth-in reply)[4.51]: Dealing firstly with the question ofwhether one of Asiatic blood born in Aus-tralia ceases to be an Asiatic, I think thedistinction is between nationality andAsiatic race. The term in the Bill is not"Asiatic national;' or "Asiatic" but "one ofAsiatic race." As we know, in Australiawe have people of the Celtic. race, Anglo-Saxon race, Italian race and many otherraces and all their descendants becomeAustralian nationals. Of course, when theyare of mixed blood they are termed half-breed;, and I do not think these restric-tions were meant to apply to them. Theyhave to be pure-bred Asiatics or Chinese.That possibly is the distinction referred tohy the member fo)r Leederville. In other wordsthey are British or Australian citizens now,although born of Asiatic parents. I quiteagree with the hon. member'si contentionthat this Bill deals not only with Indi"Insbut also with Chinese. It was thoug-ht, how-ever, that in removing this distinction itwould be just as welloto manke it applyto all Asiatics because there were so few%surviving people of Chinese blood or Asiaticblood who were not born in Australia. Itwas felt that any distinction in respect ofthe descendants of Chinese and Asiatieswho had become Australian citizens bybirth should be removed. That is whvat theBill proposes to do.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In, Committee.

Mr. Perkins in the Chair; the AttorneyGeneral in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2-agreed to.

Clause 8-Amendment of Sections 26 and135:

Mir. MARSHALL: When the Ministerwas introducing this measure I sought by

interjection to elicit from himn the numberof people that may be affected by the pas-Sage of the Bill. From memory I think theAttorrey General said, "About a dozen."

The Attorney General: And their descen-dants, I think I said.

Mr. MARSHALL: Like the niember forLeedervihle I think the Bill will involve agreater number by far than one dozen oreven two or more dozen. I am not alto-gether hostile to the passage of the meas-ure, but I am not particularly enthusiasticabout it. This clause provides for any pvr-son of Asiatic race who is a natural-bornBritish subject. M1any millions of Asiaties4are bern British subjeCts.

Hot_ A. H. Panton:, Quite a lot in Rus-sia I should say.

The Minister for Education: There arenot a great many in Western Australia.

M1r. MARSHALL: People born in India,and MHalaya are all British-born subjects.The whole of the births in Singapore, forinstance, are of British-born subjects and 1suippo~e millions of others are born in suchplaces as tlhe West Indies and elsewhereunder the British flag. We have in WesternAustralia even now a number of illiterateand aged AsiatieR, and it is doubtfulwhether it would be advisable to permitthem the liberties the Bill proposes to givethem. At the same time, I have no objectionto those who are born in Australia and whoare desceendants of Asiatics. The Ministershould have stopped there.

I realise that the hostility towardsAsiatics, which was shown in the laws pro-mulgated many years ago, was the outcomeof the situation that then existed, but therehave been many changes in our opinions inregard to this matter since then. I have al-ways held that it was very unfair to exerciseany restrictions against descendants of thesepeople horn. in Australia. There must be alarge number of aged Asiatics who wouldcome under this measure. Whether theywould be ambitious enough to aspire totake advantage of the position after the pas-sage of the Bill is another question.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon.member viewed the position in the rightperspective when he said that the situationhad altered very considerably since the in-troduetion of the original Act many yearsago. I suggest bhat the legislation would not

1469

1470 [ASSEMBLY.]

be introduced at all in these times, becausethe considerations that influenced the posi-tion then do not exist today. Most of theIndians or Asiaties affected are now of con-siderable age. This legislation deals onlywith the ownership of factories And theright to work in those factories. There is]ittle likelihood of any adverse effect beingfelt from the passage of this Bill. Legisla-tion of this type causes a certain amountof irritation and national resentment, andin these days we do not want anything ofthat description. We have Australia's repre-sentatives sitting alongside those fromAsiatic countries when attending meetingsof UNRA and similar bodies. It is time thisstigmia was removed from our legislation.

Mr. MARSHALL: I agree with theMinister in so far as his remarks apply tothe Bill under consideration. On the otherhannd, we should have further informationto make sure that others than those we de-sire to help will not benefit from theamended legislation. I would like the Min-ister's assurance as to what the first para-graph of the proviso really means, floes itmean that the Asiatic must have been domi-ciled in Western Australia prior to the,date of the introduction of the original Act,or does it mean that the individual musthave been domiciled in the State when thisamending Bill becomes law? Much will de-piend on what is meant by the term "domi-vile." There are many refugees here atpresent; and, if they are not deported inthe course of time, they may become in-volved in businesses here. What does theparagraph really mean?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: It meansthat the person concerned must be domi-ciled in this State when this Bill becomeslaw. It is wdl known that no-one ofAsiatic race has been permitted to bedomiciled in Australia for very many years,not sinee the inauguration of the WhiteAustrdlia policy. To become domiciled hereu man must be a permanent resident ofAustralia, and that could happen onlywith the consent of the CommonwealthGovernment

Mr. Marshall: Are you sure on thatpoint?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Abso.lutely sure. I call see no likelihood of theWhite Australia policy being changed. Asthe law stands, an Asiatic cannot become

domiciled so as to gain any advantage fromthis amending legislation, because he mustactually be domiciled here when the Billbecomes law.

Hon. A. H. Panton: The only way wouldbe to sneak in over the boundary.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: But eventhen he would not be ''domiciled'' now.

Mr. MARSHALL: In common with mostothe!r members, I thought the meaning wasthat the Asiatic had to be domiciled in Aus-tratlia when the parent Act was passed.

Mr. Rodoreda: Where did you get thatimpression from?

Mr. MARSHALL: I wanted to be surebecause I was under the impression, despitethe White Australia policy, that under theCommonwealth immigration lawvs an Asiaticcould become a resident of Australia undercertain conditions.

Hon. A. H. Panton: Only with the con-sent of the Minister.

Mr. MARSHALL: I thought he could doso by paying a poll tax and passing anexamination.

Ron. A. H. Panton: Not since 1903,

Mr. MARSHALL: So long as we are sureon the point I shall raise no objection tothe clause, but I do not want any loopholeleft.

The Attorney General: There is no loop-hole, because the mian must be domicilednow-and he is not here.

Mr. HEGNEY: I am surprised that themember for Mlurchison should suggest thatmost members were labouring under a delu-sion about the Bill. I cannot see how theimpression could be gained that the peopleconcerned had to be domiciled here at thetimep the original Act was passed. in addi-tion to those mentioned by the Minister,who i eferred particularly to Indians, wehave Asiaties who are horn in Hong Kong,and sonic of them and their descendantsmight be included. The governing factor isthat theyv must be domiciled in WesternAustralia when this amending measure isproclaimed. It is nece.-sary for them tohave been here in 1903. If they are thedescendants of Asiatics in British coun-tries, they would come within the provi-sions of the measure. In view of the At-torney General's explanation, I am satisfledwith the terms of the Bill. I understand

[5 OCTOBER, 1948.] 17

that similar measures have been passed bythe Parlianments of other States and thatthis amendment will bring our Iuw into linewith theirs.

Mr. FOX: T cannot understand the needfor introducing the Bill if it is to benefitoniy a very few people. I believe thatg.uitea numbewr of British born Asiatics are en-graged in Broomne and other northern towns.What will be their position? Will they bepermitted to come South and wvork in fac-tories and shall we have a fresh ;nflux everyyear?. Conditions might be satisfactorywhile Labrour is in power in the Federalsphere, hut there might be a change of Gov-ernment and we should take precautionsaccordingly. Permission might be obtainedto bring pearlers to Broome and they mighthe allowed to come to Perth. I am doubt-ful whether the present CommonwealthGlovernmnent would permit them to stayhere, but 1 wish to guard against whatmight happen. Therefore I oppose theclause.

Clause put and passed.

Title-agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and thereport adopted.

BILL,-LICENSING ACTAMENDMENT.Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 30th September.

HON. A. H. PANTON (Tseederville)[5.151 , This Bill is somewhat similar tothe one wre have just dealt with. SectionlS0a. of the Act reads-

Every licensee by whom any person ofAsiatic -race was employed in or about hislicensed premises onl the 15th day of August,1922, shall cause the name of such person tobe registered in a register to be kept at theLicensing Court for the district in which thelicensed premises arc situated; and no licenseeshall, elsewhere than in the North Provinceof the State, employ any person of Asiaticrace in or about his licensed premises whosename is not so registered: Provided that thissection shall not apply to persons of the Jewishrace.

Thus the North Province is exempt. Underthe Bill it is proposed to add to that sectionthe following wrds:-

and that this section shall not apply to--(1) any person of the Asiatic race who is

a natural-born British subject and whose

prinvipal doiiil k,. in the State on the dayof the comncuremnat of the Licensing ActAmendment Au.t, 191.9, nor

(2) to anly descendant of any person re-ferreil to in the ntext preceding paragraphif the donlicil af the descendant is in theState.

All I wish to know from the Ministor iswhether this provision will give a clean billto enable any of the people we arc- now dlis-cussing to got a.Jieense to conduct an hotel.The Act provides for the reg-istration by alicensee of any British born Asiatic em-ployed by him, and it seemis to me that theBill will wipe out all restrictions on Asiaticaliens. Would one of these persons be ableto apply for a license and would it bepossible for the Licensing Court to grantone under the Act?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Hon. A,V. R. Abbott-North Perth-in reply)[5.17]1: This Bill deals with only one see-lion of the Act and tlint section prohibitsthe employment of persons of Asiatic bloodin or about licensed premises, other thanthose persons who were so employed on the15th August1 1022, or those who are em-ployed in the North Province. It does notin oily way affect the law with respect tothe ' olding of a license; it merely dealswith those employed in or about licensedprenrilses.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Mr. Hill in the Chair; the Attorney Gen-eral in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2-agreed to.

Clause 3-Amendment of Section 130a.:.'Mr. 'MARSHALL: Does the Licensing

Act provide for any prohibition against anAsiatic being- a licensee of a hotel? I re-miember the discussion when Section 130awas before the House. It was decided thatno Asiatic would be permitted to work inand around licensed premises. The Billremoves, that prohibition; but it would seemto debar the Australian-born descendantsof Asiatins from holding a license. This, inmy opinion, is most inconsistent. Again,we have a number of aged and illiterateAsiatics who are in no way qualified to holda limePnse and, in my opinion, they ,shouldnot be allowed to do so as they would not

1471

1472

uphold our present standards. I have noobjection to the Australian-born Asiaticholdingr a license.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The onlyqualification, so far as nationality iS, con-cerned, is that provided by Section 28 (3)of the parent Act, which provides that nolicense or renewval. of a license shall begranted to any person who is not a natural-horn or naturalised British subject.

(lause put and passed.

Title-agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and thereport adopted.

BILL-NEW TRACTORS, MOTORVEHICLES AND FENCING

MATERIALJS CONTROL.

Con ncjl~n Am endmentis.

Order of the Day read for the resumptionfrom the :Ultb September of Committee on,the schedule of nine amendments made bythe Council.

lIon. J. B. SJ2EE-MAN: I do not thinkwe should agree to resumne consideration ofthe Concil's. amendments. In the firstplace, Air. Speaker, to me the Bill is notworth tuppenee, but that is beside the argu-moent. I think you should not leave theChair, becaus-e if you do the House wiltresolve itself into Committee. The Commit-tee will arrive at certain decisions, and wiltthe-n transmit to the Connil its reasonsfor so doing. The Legislative Council willin turn send hack a message insisting uponits amendments. The Minister in chargeof the Bill will ask for a conference andyoui, Sir, are aware how long that .will take.It may occupy four or five hours. TheMtiniser and the other managers will thenreport to the House what a wonderful winthey have had over the Leg-islative Council,and tile next day the Minister will promul-gnti' somne re-_ulations upsetting everythingthat wve have agreed to. I think that pro-er-dure is wrong and that wre should notwaste the timne of this House and anotherplace merely in order to get back where westarted. In my opinion, we would be betterneeiipied in debating some of the other Billson the notice paper.

Mr. GRAHAM: I wholeheartedly agreewith the attitude adopted by the memberfor Fremantle, but more especially with the

premises on which be bases his argument.Before we proceed further, we should havesome definite undertaking from the Ministerin charge of the Bill that, if this Housearrives at certain determinations and isable to prevail upon the Legislative Councilto accept them, he will not-and I use thisterm advisedly-double-cross this House bypromulgating regulations within a week orso to defeat the purpose and intention ofthis House. If we agree to allow that stateof affairs. to develop, then, as the memberfor Fremnantle points out, we are merelywastingv the time of this House and of an-other place. In other words, we want tobe assured of the Government's bona fideiin regard to the Council's amendments.Should this Chamber disagree with theCouncil's amendments then I say it is wrongand unfair to members that the results oftheir exertions should be set at nought byPromulgating regulations which will havethe effect of defeating the express will ofthis Chamber. I should accordingly bepleased if the Mlinister would indicatewhether he is going to play fair and squarewith the members of this House, or whetherhe is going to allow us to be toyed with aswe were a few weeks ago in connection withthe Land Sales Control Bill.

Committee Resamed,

LMr. Perkins in the' Chair; the Ministerfor Transport in charge of the Bill.

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT:There are several amendmnents on the noticepaper but they all hinge on No. 2. I su--gest, therefore, that we deal with thatamendment first.

The CHAIRMAN: Would it suit theMinister to take Nos. 1 and 2 together!

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT:Yes.

No. 1. Clause 1-Insert the word "and"before the word "Motor" in line 6.

No. 2. Clause 1-Delete the words "andFencing Materials" in line 7.

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT:I move-

That amendments Not. 1 And 2 be not agreedto.

The provision for the control of fencingmaterials was inserted in the Bill becauseof the great shortage of supplies that exists

1472 [ASSEMBLYf.]

[5 OcTonna, 1948.1]47

from one end of the State to the other.Fencing materials are badly needed fromthe North-West to Albany and it is neces-sary that there should be pownT to exercisecontrol over their distribution to ensure thatavailable supplies are allotted in order ofpriority arf need. It is only by an indepen-dent authority having all applications be-fore him that we shall be able properly todetermine their relative merits. I do notsuggest that merchants would not determinethem to the best of their ability; but eachmerchant would have only a certain numberof applications before him and would knownothing of the needs of applicants who hadapplied to other merchants for supplies.The Committee would be ill-advised to agreeto the Council's amendments.

H16n, J. T. TONKIN:- I was very glad tohear the Minister say he intends to opposethe Council's amendments. I do not think hecould have done anything else without re-pudia-ting what he said at the second read-ing. The reason he gave for the introductionof the Bill was that supplies were so hope-lessly below the demand as to make it neces-wiry for control to be exercised by anindependent authority.

The shortage of fencing materials is asbad as, if not worse than that of tractorsand motor vehicles; and if the Governmentdesires to control tractors and motorvehicles, it must insist on controlling fenc-ing materials also. A farmer in Northam,to mention one of many, has been endeavour-ing to obtain fencing materials for sometime. He placed an order in 1945 for ring-lock fencing and an order in 1946 for barbedwire. The firm with whom the orders werelodged gave him the information that itwould take two years or more before itcould meet the order for ringloek fencingand barbed wire, and upwards of threeyears before it would be able to supply rab-bit netting. We do not -require any moreevidence than that to prove that the supplyof these materials is hopelessly behind thedemand, and that control is equally neces-sary for fencing materials and. for motorvehicles. We must control both or neither.

I cannot understand the attitude of an-other place in this matter. It has agreedto the control of certain motor vehicles buthas disagreed to the eontrol of other itemsmentioned in the Bill. There is no logic inthat. I support the Minister's attitude; but

I would like to know how far he intends togo-whether he intends to see the matterall the way through or whether this is justa show of force at the moment and he isgoing to capitulate later on.

Mr. BOVELL: I find myself at variancewith the Minister and the member for North-East Fremnantle.

Hoc'. J. T. Tonkin; Yes; you are aLiberal!I

Mr. BOVELL: I support the amendmentsuggested by another place. If proof couldbe given that the control of fencing ma-terial's Would add one iota to production Iwould most certainly support the Minister.Farmers throughout my electorate are ur-gently in need of fencing materials. Someof them have heen waiting for two and threeyears for supplies. This will mean that,,after waiting that time, someone will fill ina for'M and convince a public servant thathe is in a better position to receive the fen e,ing materials, so that the long wait wilthave been in vain, If I were convinced thatthis additional control would aMd to theSupply, I would support the Minister. I1find myself in complete agreement with thhamendment moved by another place.

Mr. ACKLAND: I support the Ministerin the stand he has taken. This, possibly,is the most important of the three itemswhich have been listed.

Hon. A. R. 'G. Hawke: Not peassibly,hut certainly.

Mr. ACKLAND. I think I go aroundthe country as much as most members, andI cannot recall seeing any fencing materiat,on any of the less developed properties, dur-ing Elhe last two years at least, although Ihave seen some on various other properties.I cannot understand the attitude of themerchants. Possibly they are, to some ex-tent, blackmailed by different people intosupplying certain requirements. I believea threat is put to thems on oceasions--"Ifyou do not let me have some fencing ma-terial I shell send my wool clip somewhereelse, or my sheep will be handed to anotherfirm."

We find that people who do not mnosturgently need certain requirements are, insome case;, getting them, I would like tocite three instances that have come to mynotice in my electorate. last year a manout towards the No. 2 rabbit-proof fence

1473

1474 -( ASSEMBLY.]

bad a very fine crop of wheat which, I amtold, should have averaged between 15 and18 bushels, Because of the ravages of thecmus, he stripped about three. I have beentrying hard to obtain some ringlock netting

* for him to protect this year's crap, but thereis not the slightest hope of getting it becausehis order has not been in as long as someothers.

Another man at Daudarragn had, last* year, 4010 acres of lupins, not one acre of

which could he use, because of poison adjoin-ing his property. He had not one yardof fencing on the place. This year he hassufficient lupis-I have seen them-to fat-ten at least 3,000 sheep. All those lupins willgo to waste because, I am told, he wvill notbe able to get any fencing materials, as hisorder ha-s not been in a., long as, some others.Only on Sunday last I visted, in companywith the member for Yilgarn-Coolgardie, athird property' , and] it has lieen establishied

* for 40 years. It is not onty bounded byrabbit netting, but is divided into three bynetting fences. I think I am right in sayingthat there are more than 30 paddocks, onthe property-all fine stock-proof paddoeks-yet the owner under the present set-upwill get his fencing requirements, which arenot essential but which will improve theproperty, before the other two meon I havealready mentioned.

The membher for Sussex said that thiswill not make any inore fencing materialavailable. Well, we know that. The BillAwas not introduceed for that purpose, but towee that it goes to those places where it ismost urgently required. I believe that under

:L this arrangement that can bie done. I do'not u-ant anyonle to run away with the ideathat I ami criticising the firms who distri-binte the netting. They are not there to seethat the miaterial goes where it is mosturgently nerded, huit to do business in theirown best interests. They are only followingordinary busines4s practice if they supplythe fencing miaterial ordered from them, soThat it will do them the most good. I do notthink any membher can complain of that at-titude, but what we should do is to see thatThe little material which is available is dis-tributed to those, who most urgently requireit. I hope the Committee will support theMinister.

'Mr. HEGNEY: I express my pleasure atthe Minister's attitude. I hope that if a

conference eventually takes place, the man-agers from this Chamber will remainLa damant. If the reason of another placefor the proposed deletion of the control offencing- materials is as outlined bry the mem-ber for Sussex, then it is a very weak onpe.On the basis mentioned by the hion. iflem-her, I' would agree to the elimination ofall control.

Mr. Ba vell: That is my ultimate objec-tive.

sen. The b.I E: I am speaking of the pre-sen. '1;hn.member would not subscribe

to a policy -of rationing or control of anysort. The only argument hle raised was thatpr-oduetioa would not be increased if theprovision for the control of fencing ma-terials was included. We are not discussingthe question of production, hut of distri-bution of certain commnodities among whichare fencing mnaterials. The principle under-lying the Bill is that the available supplies,which do not equal the demand, shall bedislrilmnted as equitatbly as possible. TheMinister said that pastoralists and farmersare short of these materials. I know that intlie northern ar-ea., pastoralists have beenshort of themn for sonc time, but I wouldnot like to ,;ce discrimination used in far-onr of one pastorahist to the detriment ofanother. T think the zuachiucity clauses ofthe, Bill Will enSUre that the fencing ma-terial a vairable will hie allotted to thoseinost in need. That is why I support themotion.

Qnest ion put and passed: thev Council'samnendments; not agreed to.

No. 3-Clauise 4: Page 2-Delete thawor, ''or of new fencing materials t t inline 10.

No. 4-Clause 6: Page 2-Delete the defi-nition of '"fencing mnaterials" in lines 39,40 and 41.

On mnotions; by the Mfinister for Trans-port, the foregoing anendaments were notagreed to.

No. 5-Cause 6: Page 3 -In definitionof "motor vehile"-Delete all words, afterthe words "motor vehicle" in first line downto and including the figures "1919-1947" inthird line, and substitute the words "meansa mnotorcar of over twelve horsepower or amotor trucek of a capacity not exceeding oneton)

3

[5 OCTOBER, 1948.] 17

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT:This amendment seeks to have deleted fromthe Bill power to control motor vehicles ofunder 12 horsepower, and various othervehicles mentioned in the original Bill. 1move-

That the amendment be not agreed to.

If it is necessary to take control over motorvehicles, it is necessary to control them all.While it has been said that supplies oflighter types of ears are more nearly meet-ing the demand, it is not yet possible tolift the control over them. The Governmentis anxious to dispense with controls when-ever the position is such as to warrant thatcourse being followed. It is felt that weshould have power to control these vehiclesand then, if supplies improve sufficiently,the control can be lifted accordingly. InOctober last, 4,600 applications for motorvehicles had been received. That figure isnow just under 10,000, and it is increasingby double the rate of the number of per-mits issued each month. That gives no rea-son for a belief that we will in the nearfuture be in a position to lift the controlfrom any class of motor vehicle.

Question put and passed; the Council'samendment not agreed to.

No. 6-Cause 7 (1): Paragraph (a)-Delete the words "and new fencingmaterials" in line 16, on page 3.

Consequentially on amendment No. 6, thefollowing amendments were made:-

Clause 7, Suhelause (6):-(i) The words "and the first order

relating to new fencing mat-erials" in lines 38 and 39 weredeleted.

(ii) The word "each" in line 40 wasdeleted.

Clause 9, page 4:(i) The word "or" after the word

"tractor" in line 10 was in-serted.

00i The words "or new fencing mat-erials" in line 11 were deleted.

(iii) The word "or" after the word"tractors" in line 13 was in-serted.

(iv) The words "or fencing materials"in line 13 were deleted.

No. 7-Second Schedule: Page 8-in de-finition of "commercial motor vehicle" deleteall words after the word "vehicle" where itappears secondly in line 2 down to the endof the definition and substitute the words"of a capacity not exceeding one ton."

No. 8-Third Schedule: Page 8-In de-finition of "motorcar" insert after the word"vehicle" in first line the words "of overtwelve horsepower."

No. 9-Title: The tile was amended asfollows:-

(i) Inserting after the word "Tractors"the word "and,"

(AI) Deleting the words "and new Fenc-ing Materials."

On motions by the Minister for Trans;-port, the foregoing amendments were notagreed to.

Resolutions reported and the reportadopted.

A committee consisting of the Hon. J. T.Tonkin, Mr. Ackland and the Minister forTran~port, drew up reasons for not agree-ing to the Council's amendments.

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT: 1move-

That the reasons he adopted.

Ur.' GRAHEAM: I may not have beencorrect, speaking in the terms I used, afew minutes ago, but I wish to assure theMinister and the Government that I amsincere and serious in this matter. I askthe 'Minister in charge of the Bill whetherhe will give some assurance to members thatif tl~ere is a conference between the twoHouses to deal with this measure and themanagers for the Assembly stand out andultimately succeed in giving effect to thewishes of this House--at all events sub-statilly-it is his intention to abide by thedecision of this House or whether subse-quently, at the expiration of an exceedinglyshort space of time, he will take steps byregulation completely to nullify what hasbeen determined. I feel that members ofthis House are entitled to know what theintentions of the Minister are in this regard.

The Attorney General: We have heardthis from you a thousand times.

Mr. GRAHAM: As long as members ofthe Government arc prepared to show such

1475

1476 [ASSEMBLY]

scant respect for other members of thisChamber, I will continue to rise from myseat and express disapproval of their tak-ing such steps. There is no nqed for meto repeat what I have said. We spent thewhole of one night thrashing out a certainmatter, and, a few days later, the Ministerfor Lands gave away everything for whichwe had fought.

The Minister for Lands: That is a mis-statement.

Mr. GRAHAM: It is a rotten state ofaffairs. In all seriousness, I feel that I andother members are entitled to an assurancethat what we determine will not be givenaway, overnight, by way of regulation. Ihope the M'sinister wilt indicate to the Househis attitude in this regard.

The M1INISTER FOR TRANSPORT:It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, toreply to the remarks of the member forEast Perth. I consider those remarks to beinsulting and such as should not have beenaddressed to any Government. I resent hisimputation that there is any want of sin-cerity on the part of the Government, andI certainly will not do anything to indicatewhat my attitude is. I disagree to theseamendments made by the Council and Ithink I am entitled to expect the Oppositionto take my word,

Question put and passed, the reasonsadopted and a message accordingly returnedto the Council.

BILL-FEEDING STUFFS ACTAMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

IDebate resumed from the 28th Septain-her.

MR. 'WILD ('-',wn)l [6.01 : I listenedwith a great amount of interest to thesecond reading speech of the Minister whenhe introduced the Bill and also to the speechotf the member for North-East Fremantle.Thme amendment to the Act is long overdueand it is one that has been desired by thepoultry industr ,y in Western Australia fora )on$, time. However, it does not go farenough and, although I agree with the Billin part, when we come to the Committeetatre T intend to move an amendment fur-

ther to strengthen the hand of the poultry

farmer so that he will not be given a typeOf food inferior to that which is supposedto be covered by the registered analysis.

Poultry live mainly on wheat, bran, pol-lard, xneatmeal and green feed, and the De-partment of Agriculture has drawn up fromtime to time what it considers to be a fairand equitable ration for each bird. In lieuof these foodstuffs poultry farmers are ableto secure various kinds of prepared mashesmade up by the millers and manufacturersof prepared foods. Over a period of timethese prepared foods have definitely netproved to be according to label. If thepoultry farmer could procure sufficientbran, pollard and meatmeal be would bein a position to make up his own poultryfood. At the moment a Poultry farmer isforced to pay 16s. 5d. per 120 lb. for pre-pared mashes whereas if the bran and pol-lard, etc., were readily available he couldproduce 120 lb. of mash for 11s. 4d.

The millowners control the output of branand pollard and I suppose we cannot denythe right of an individual to do whateverhe wishes with his own product, but I dothink that the niillowners should be forcedto pat into that prepared mash a sufficientquantity of proteins to enable a poultryfarmier to produce at a payable price. Thecontrol maintained by the millowners9 overbran and pollard means that a poultryfarmer cannot get all he wishes and he isthus forced to purchase prepared mashes.

I wish to quote figures suipplied by theGovernment Statistician over the years19:38-39 to 1046-47 showing the quantity offlour, bran and pollard produced in thisState, together with the number of eggsproduced and exported during the sameperiodl. From the figures it will be seenthat the production of bran and pollard hasbeen more or less stati c sine 1939, due tono new mnills having been erected since thattime. WVeLtern Australia produced 137,000tons of flour in 1939. This production de-creased to 126,000 tons in 1942-during thewar years-but in 1946-47 it rose to 176,000tout3 That quantity is almost the maximumam1ount that can be produced from the muills(of Western Australia.

I was assured this morning when speak-incu to Mr. Mferry of the Millers' Associa-tion that, takRing into consideration thetime required to overhaul the ma-chin cry, we have reached almost a. 100 per

1476

[5 OCTOBER, 1948.] 47

cent. production. In 1938-39, 34,000 tonsof bran were produced and during the samePeriod 23,000 tons of pollard were manu-factured. In 1942-43, 31,000 tons of branwere produced and in the year 1946-47 thishad increased to 40,000 tons. The amountof Pollard manufactured in 1942-43 was22,000 tons and in 1946-47 this had risen to28,000 tons. There has been a very slightincrease but nothing commensurate with theterrific increase in the number of poultryand eggs produced in Western Australiaover the same period.

In .1039 -agnin I quote from "The WestAustralian Quarterly" -the number of eggsin shell exported from Western Australiawas 810,000 dozen and in 1946-47 it had in-creased to just over 2,000,000 dozen. Thisshows that there has been a proportional in-crease in eggs exported from Western Aus-tralia from 1938-39 to 194-47 of over 200per cent., whereas at the same time the pro-duction of bran and pollard from mills inWestern Australia has shown a slight in-crease only. If the millowners are going toretain a large proportion of the brand andp~ollard that is theirs by right as they crushfor flour, then I maintain that it is their re-sponsibility to see that the prepared mashesthat they put up for the poultry farmerscontain sufficent proteins to allow farmersto make a living. In the past the positionhas been far from satisfactory. Some twoyears ago, tinder this Act, the manufac-tirers; were forced to put the name of thefirm and what the product contained onblbels at~avhed to the bags containing pre-pared mashes.

Under an amendment of last year themanufacturers were forced to supply theDepartment of Agriculture with a registeredanalysis of what each bag contained, but asI have stated those bags of prepared mashescontained far from what 'was set out in thatregistered analysis. They' did not reveal thetruth. When I use the word "truth" Imean the truth according to the registered]analwes deposited with the department. Inthe past the position has been far fromsatisfactory, and about 18 months ago snapsamples were taken by representatives ofthe Poultry Farmers' Aissociation of West-ern1 Australia.

-I had the opportunity of perusing the-relevant file. I for one cannot understand

why prosecutions were not launched, for ifever false pretences were made theywere made in this particular instance. Inthe "Government Gazette" of the 14th May,194, are shown results of analyses ofsamples of foodstuffs taken under the Feed-ing Stuffs Aet 1928-1946, which furtherproves that even when the departmentchecks these prepared mashes they are farfrom satisfactory. Between the 3rd Decem-ber, 1947 and the 11th March, 1948, a totalof 28 analyses were taken and of these 13were deficient in protein. I will now quoteone or tivo of them-

Dlatesazmpletaken. Firm Brn4d

21/10/47 "Western' Egg Food-Reg. Anal.Sample Anal.

10/9/17 "T'hoom' Chick Starter No.2-

Reg. Anal.Sanmple Anal.

6/11/47 "Weatarmera Sweetened DairyMeal-

Reg. Anal.Sample Anal.

21/10/47 "Westarners" Protina MealB-

Beg. AnalSample Anal.

21/10/47 "Redmb Laying Pellets-Reg. AnaISample Anal.

10/3/d8 'Speedy" Meatmal-Reg. Anal.Sample Anal.

CrudeProtein.

40.0026.20

11.0010.80

11.0010.20

35.0033.80

14.001200

88.0029.1

I realise that checks are made from time totime by the poultry section of the Depart-mnent of Agriculture of the analyses made ofthese prepared mashes. However, they arestill far from satisfactory although I under-stand that the department has been short ofstaff. The poultry farmers cannot get thebran, pollard and meatmeal to preparetheir own niashes and, if they are forced tobuy prepared mashes from the manufac-turers, they should be given what they askfor. If one goes into a shop to buy some-thing- and the article is not according toBoyleA then the vendor is liable to prosecu-tion for false pretences. Yet, farmers areforced to take miashbes which contain far be-low :he correct amnount of protein.

To give the House an illustration of whathappens when protein is deficient in theseprepared mashes I am going to quote f romthe Journal of Agriculture of Western Aus-trali a of June, 1948, which sets out the testsniade at Muresk Agricultural College withvarious types of mashes, each being givento twelve separate pens, and each pen con-taining 50 birds. In the ease of two pensof birds that were fed on bran, pollard and

1477

1478 ASSEMBLY.]

meatmeal, etc., with a protein content of15.2 per cent, the average egg productionwas 170 from one pen and 150 from theother. With a protein content of 15 percent., which is only .2 per cent, lower thanthe previous tests, the eggs obtained fromtwo pens totalled 166 and 118. Then of twofurther pens on a protein content of only13.2 per cent, the eggs dropped to 133 and96. To the poultry farmer that means atremendous amount, In the first pen quoted,with a protein content of 15.2 per cent.,the profit per bird per year over feedingcosts was 15s. OVad., whilst in the pen withonly 13.2 per cent. protein the profit wasdown to 109. 4 4d.

This indicates that with a protein dropof 2 per cent-fromn 15.2 per cent, to 13.2per cent.-the profit per bird dropped 5s.6d. which represents approximately 40 percent. From the figures quoted it can be seenthat if these prepared mashes have a slightdeficiency of protein as low as only one or1.5 per cent., that with such a slight defici-ency the result to the poultry farmer is dis-astrous. Yet the previous figures I havequoted showing the analyses taken by theDepartment of Agriculture illustrate manyof these to he as high as 10 per cent, lowerand I therefore say to members: "Whathope is there for the poultry farmerl"When making some research into this ques-tion I also obtained figures regarding anAmerican station similar to Muresk College.In the 'United States the poultry farmersnormally feed 18 to 20 per cent, proteinwhich is higher than in this State. In fact,they even go as high as 30 per cent:.

The feeding experiments held at CornellUniversity U.S.A., show that 12 per cent.Protein gives an average of 148 eggs; 14per cent, protein 156 eggs, and 16 per cent.protein 178 eggs. Those figures arc in keep-ing with test., conducted at Muresk Collegeand show that the analyses and check teststaken by the department are very accurate.I think that lends weight to my argumentthat a small deft-iency in protein of only oneor 1.5 per cent. means a differenice betweenstarvation and the industry being able topay. The amending Bill does not go farenough, and in Committee, therefore, I amgoing to move an amendment to force thesemanufacturers of prepared mashes to statethat the laying mash containg a protein con-tent of not less than 16 per cent. I am also

going to ask that we make 16 per cent. theminimum content.

I intend further to disagree with thatpart of the Bill which desires to absolve theseller of packages of 28 lb. or less of pre-pared mash from providing an invoice. Ifit is good enough for the manufacturer tohave to attach a label denoting the contentsof say a 120 lb. bag, then I submit it isthe responsibility of the merchant whobreaks it into smaller quantities to have tostate on the invoice the exact particulars ofthe feed he is selling. With these reserva-tions I support the second reading.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 7.30 p.m.

THE MINISTER FOR LANDS (Hon. L.Thorn-Toodyay-in reply) [7.30]: Whendiscussing the Bill, the member for North-East Fremantle dealt 'with the measure andalso with me.

Hon. J. T. Tonkin: I think I was rattergenerous to you.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: The hon.member gave his blessing to the first twoamendments but disagreed to the third. Hemade the point that I 'had not explainedthe position correctly to the House, and hewas quite right; I did not do so. It is in-tended to amend Section 5C, which reads-

(1) Every person who sells any manufacturedfood for stock or any by-product shall securelyand conspicuously affix a label or brand inaccordance with this section to every packagecontaining such food for stock or by-product.

Then it proceeds to set out in Subsection(2)-

On every such label there shall be set out-(a) the name and place of business of the

manufacturer or importer;(b) the distinguishing name of the stock

food or by-product.it is intended by Clause 4 to add anotherparagraph reading as follows-

(c) the chemical analysis, referred to insection five, subsection (:1), paragraph (e)of this Act, of the stock-food or lkv-produet.

I think that provision is most essential, andthe mnember for 'North-East Fremantle ap-proves of it. Then we get to Section 5D,which sets out that-

Every person 'who sells any food for stock(whether paid for at the time of sale or not)shiall, at tI,0 time of sale, or within seven daysafter delivery of the food for stock, or anypart thereof, give to the purchaser an invoicecertificate....

1478

[5 QerToEn, 194&1 17

It is proposed, under Clause 5, to add anew subsection as follows-

(7) The provisions of this section shall notextend or apply to ainy package when the netweight of the contcnts does not cxceed twventy.eight pounds.

That also deals with invoices, and we nowseek to miake it unnecessary for them to becprovided when the weight of the parcel isless than 281b. Dealing with the remarksboy the memiber for Swan, I fully appreciatethe need to protect producers with regardto prepared stock-foods,. We know thosefoods can he tampered with. Their con-tents. may not be up to the standard indi-cated b-y the analysis, and I agree with thehon. member that poultry farmers would beuch better off if they could purchase the

ess:ential ingredients and mix the feed fortheir poultry. That applies equally to fer-tili..prs. If I could get the necessary sap-jilies so that I could mix my own fertilisers,that would be more valuable, from my pointof 6dew, in my farming operations.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In ('wimmitlee.

M1r. Perkins in the Chair; the Ministertor Lands in charge of the Bill.

('tause'. 1 to fl-ngrerrl to.

Clau.,;e 4-Amendment of Section 5C:Mr. Wil:I move an amendment-Tbat nf thne end of' l)rc)r)~cd new parag-raph

(e) the following words he addedt :---dsm-h analysis sall, if the stock food or by-lprohinet 1w laying ma~sh for poisltry, show thatsuch laying mash cntains protein contentof not less than IG pe~r cent.''

I explained during the second rending de-hate the ncsiyof cusuring that manu-facturers include a certain protein contentin layin-- miashe-s, and there is no need forine to repeat my arg-ument.

The MINISTER V ()t LANDS: I appre-ciate the desire of the member for Swan toprovide laying mnashi of the highest stan-dard possible. but I a1m1 Cermy doubtfulwhether we could force manufacturers tocarry out his intention, as indicated by theamlendmient. T hanve grave doubts whetherwe could force the manufacturers to raisethe protein content to 16 per cent. If wecoutl do so. it would mean increasing thecost of the mash to the producer becnuse

the values of such commodities are based onthe analyses of the units contained in thefood. 3My sympathy is with the memberfor Swan in seeking to achieve what he hassuggest 3d.

Hfon. A. H. Panton: Bnt he wants yourhelp, not your sympathy.

The MLN]\'STER FOR LANDS: If I feltthat we could enf6rce the amendment, 1would be prepared to accept it. I suggestthat we report progress at this stage inorder that I might have the amendmentexamined.

Hon. A. A. M,%. Coverley: Hnve not youthe Attorney General's opinion of theamendment!?

The MINXISTER 'FOR LANDS: I havenot had tiame to seek it.

lHon. J1. T. TONKIN: I suggest that theamtendmnent he accepted, although experiencemight s-how that it cannot be enforced. Ifthe member for Swan could do so, I feelsure he would -seek to have the amendmentinserted in anotlher section of the Act, butthis cannot be done because we are limitedto the amiending Bill before uis. I thinkri1lieis are in agreemnent with the ob~jec,-

live to ensure that manufactured sto('kjoods.,hall hkave a minimIum protein Content, thl-gmarn'-c~ne'i, toe the purchaser that the foodhe reluctantly buys, because he cannot ob-tain the various ingredients separately, W-illcontain a9 minimumt proteia content tiat willgo0 a lCUng way towards giving him wvhat hiede~sires. If the amendment could be insertedii] it,; appropriate plat'e in the Act, it couldhe enlfor-ed, because we- could stipulate thatthe food shbould he ot a certain standardor other-wise coudd not he offered for sale.However, we cannot lose but might po-giblygain srimetbing by inserting the amendment

The MIfNISTER FOR LANDIS: I repenttha-t I shbould like to give effect to theamendmnent to aist the member for Swan,lint I first wish to have it examined.

Progress reported.

BILL-PREVENTION or CRUELTY TOANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 30th September.

1479

480[ASSEMBLY.]

MR. BRADY (Guildford-Mlidland) [7.46]:I Paid close attention to the remarks of theAttorney General when he was moving thesecond reading and I have since carefullystudied the provisions of the Bill. I recallhis saying that he had dealt with what heconsidered to be the vital parts of theBill, but a close scrutiny has satisfied methat there are some important proposals towhich he did not refer. However, this mightdepend upon one's own point of view.

The Bill proposes to insert a definitionof the word "cruelty" and thus provide asimpler way of administering the law andtaking action. Whereas previously a policeconstable bad to obtain the sanction of aJustice of the Peace before being able todirect that an animal be not used for work,it is now proposed that the sanction of ajustice should not be necessary. The Actcontains a provision that when an animalhad to be destroyed, the owner's permissioinhad to be obtained and a veterinary surgeonhad to be called ia to certify that the animalshould he destroyed. Those obligations arenow to be removed and a police officer oran officer of the R.S.P.C.A., is t o be em-powered to order that an animal be notworked or that it be destroyed, an~d therewill be nobody who can argue the point.

I admit that those amendments are worthyof consideration and perhaps should bepassed, but there is another pruvisipn tothe effect that an employee shall be heldresponsible equally with the owner with re-gard to the ill-treatment of or cruelty to nilanimal. I believe tbat the owner was heldresponsible at common law and also underthe existing statute for the act of his em-ployee, hut now it is -proposed that theemployee, as well as the owner, shall he heldresponsible. I do not approve of the em-ployee being held responsible and, in Com-mittee, I propose to move an amendment toprovide that only in certain eases shall re-s~ponsgibility rest on the employee.

A fe'; 'ears. ago a farmer in the Meeker-ing district left 250) sheep in a paddock tostarve, and I can visualise a farmer insuch a care walking off the farm and tell-ing an employee to look after the sheep.U~nder the amendment proposed in the Bill,the employee would be held responsible andwould suffer the penalty. There are caseswhere a man in charge of an animal might

not be responsible for working it or mightnot know of an injury. Take the instancein a Collie mine where a man was workinga horse that was injured. His attentionshould have been called to the injurymuch earlier, but the man wat dismissed orsuspended, which led to a stoppage of workat the mine. I can understand an em-ployee having difficulty in seeing an in-jury or being able to estimate the dangeror the difficulties likely to arise if he con-tinued to work the animal. Therefore, itwould be quite wrong for an employee to bemade responsible in such cases as a manworking a horse in the Collie mines or aman left to look after animals, such assheep on a farm without sufficient feed forthem. That part of the Bill should heamended when we reach the Committeestage. The employee should be made re-sponsible only when he is directly in chargeof an animal and has been the cause of theinjury or has worked the animal while it isinjured.

The Bill also provides that a police of-ficer, or an R.SP.C.A. officer, shall be re-sponsible in certain districts for determin-ing whether an animal should be destroyedor whether animals should he permitted to besent by rail, and so on. It should also con-tain a provision that the police officer or theR.S.P.C.A. officer should be qualified to ar-rive at such a decision. Here is a ease inpoint! I personally saw an animal injured.A number of people caine along and immedi-ately reached the conclusion that the localconstable should be sent for to destroy theanimal. That was the opinion of the ma-jority; but another layman, a railway em-ployee, came along who apparently had noparticular qualifications. He expressed theopinion that the animal was valuable andshould be saved. He said that if a veterin-arian could be brought to the spot hurriedly,the animtal could be saved. His advice wasacted upon, the animal was treated andsaved. If the Bill passes in its presentform it would be possible for a police con-stable,, without qlualifications, to decide thatan animal should be destroyed when in factthe animal could be saved. In my opinion,an employee should not bear the samne re-sponsibility as his& employer and I will en-deavour to have that provision in the Billrectified in Committee.

Another provision in the Bill is that anemployee should not be excused if he pleads

1480

[5 OCTOoER, 1948.] 1481

that the act he was performing was doneas a consequence of instructions from hisemployer. That provision requires closeanalysis, because, if passed, I believe it willbe the cause of great friction between theemployee and the employer. An employeewho has a good job would be rather hesi-taut to tell his employer that he should notwork certain animals in a team, or that heshould not drive a certain number of sheepfor a certain distance, as the employermight consider that the employee wvas tell-ing him how to do his job. Again, -theemployee might run the risk of losing a goodposition by arguing the point with his em-ployer. The Bill has a tendency to throwon the employee the responsibility for see.lug that an animal is not ill-treated in themanner 1 have mentioned.

Another part of the Bill which I considerdangerous is the provision-despite the sec-tions of the Justices Act and the CriminalCod-f4or a minimum penalty of 10s. wherea person is found guilty of cruelty toanimals. The penalty should be left to thediscretion of the magistrate. I have hadsome experience in this regard myself, and

I feel that sometimes a conviction is suffi-cient penalty. A person may have a sub-normal son or daughter, either of whommnight ill-trc~tt an animal and subsequentlybe charged with cruelty. Damages may beawarded to the owner of the animal and Iconsider that a conviction and payment ofdamages in such an instance would be suffi-cient penalty. I hope that in Committeethe amendments 1 have forecast will beagrecd to.

MR. MANN (Beverley) [7.56]: 1 havebut little to say on the Bill. No doubt theintentions of the R.S.P.C.A. are very good;but both the parent Act and this amendingBill are farcical, especially when one con-siders that farmers are forced, under theVermin Act, to destroy vermin on their pro-perty. I should say there is little differencebetween cruelty to a rabbit and cruelty toa horse. I am prosecuted'if I drive a horsewith a sore shoulder, but not if I poisonrabbits with phosphorus, which results in alingering, painful death. I have observedthe result of phosphorus poisoning. Thephosphorus burns out their insides. Trapsare set during an afternoon and they maynot be visited until late at night or earlyin the morning; but in the meantime the

rabbits are for hours held by their feet inthe traps. If I sent six rabbits to Perth ina bag I would he prosecuted, as I would beif I sent six fowls in a crate not big enoughto hold them comfortably. Yet I am com-pelled by the stupid Vermin Act, as amend-ed, lto lay a trail of poison on my propertyto kill rabbits.

Anayone who has seen rabbits die of phos-phorus poisoning will concede that there isno more cruel or inhuman way of disposingof animals. Are -we sane or insane in ourpolitical ideas? This amendment seems tome to be farcical. How can we give effectto the good intentions of the 1.S.P.C.A.?Let us have some common basis. I suggestto the Government that it withdraw thisamending Hill and bring in some common-sense measure for the protection of animals.It is permissible to destroy vermin under anAct of Parliamnent-a fool of an Act, too.Consider the case of a horse that has tobe destroyed! Who is to decide that it shallbe destroyed? For years I have looked uponthe R.S.P.C.A. as an honourable body withevery intention of doing all it could for theprotection of animals. Yet we farmers areobliged to set traps to catch rabbits anddingoes.

I have seen a dingo hanging by his feetfrom a trap and suffering great pain; butif I sent a dingo pap to Perth in a box un-reasonably small,, not conforming to theprovisions of the Act, I would he prosecuted,although I would not be prosecuted forletting a dingo bang in a trap for a coupleof (lays. Does not the whole position strikethe House as being farcical? If we aregoing to penalise one, let us penalise thelot, and say that no man shall Pause anyanimal undue pain. Hut if we decided todo that, we would need to have a definition of"undue pain." Parliament has passed mesa-tirs before that have made it a laughingstock; and if this Bill be agreed to, it willbring the House into greater ridicule thanbefore. I suggest that a comprehensive Billbe framed to cover vermin as well as otheranimals.

MR. GRAYDEN (Middle.Swan) [8.1]:I am rather surprised at the remarks of theprevious speakers, particularly the memberfor Guildford-M~idland. The primary par-pose of the Bill is to prevent cruelty toanimals, -but it appears to me that the niem-

rI - . I . II I. I .- - - I - ,,

1482 [ASSEMBLY.]

her for Guildford-Midland is more con-cerned about protecting the owner and theemployee. He desires that an animal, on ac.count of its value, shall not be destroyed ifit is injured. I have every sympathy for theowner and the employee; but I have verymuch more sympathy for the injured ani-mal; because, after all, the employee andthe owner call speak for themselves.

We should leave the onus on the employeeand the owner, where it rightly belongs. Weshould give a constable the right to destroyan animal that is injured. That anyoneshould make the suggestion that a convictionfor cruelty is sufficient in some instances isbeyond my comprehension. The penalty in

r the Bill should he made vry much moresevere rather than be reduced. I cannotquite understand why the member for Bev-erley suggested that this Bill should bescrapped with a view to the introduction oflegislation to deal with the matter on awider basis. Surely it is better to alleviatesuch cruelty as we canl than to scrap a meas-are which has that intention, simply becausewe cannot deal with all cruelty! The factthat certain vermin can be trap~pedl andpoisoned is surely no excuse for our not do-ing everyl iimg we (an to p~revent cruelty iiiother instances. Therefore I consider weshould pas, the Bill as it stands; rather thanamendl or de feat it as has~ been suggested.

HON. J. B. SLEEMAN (Fremantle)[S.51 :It lather anmuses In,' to see the eroci)-dile tc;:r, of the member far 21 iddle Swanaand to li-ar of his love fi- animals, whenl rnali-e that in the heari o Is electoratecruelly- oe,,i 'o-erv Sntmilar. ()net can gto Bllsiint or to W.A.T.C. iialittr- orHlekna Vale and see lhorse, having theirlives thrashetd out of them in order ',to saveI he mione-v of the puntvrs.

ofHon. A. 1I. Pantonl: Not to0 much moneyofthe punters is saved!

Hill. J. 11. SLEEMAN. Only the Satur-day bef ore ]last 1 was at the races when ahorse came in with blood running down it.'side. Two ladies nearby said, "What ashame! The police should have somethingto say about a horse being treated like that.'So if the memuber for Mliddle Swan wantsto do some good for these poor aimalsN, lethim visit the places I have mentioned andsee what he can do. I have heard peoplesay of a horse, "He has plenty of sting";

and -when I asked what that meant, I wastold, "He has a drop of poison. Can't yousee how his eyes are staring out of hishead.

I think tile H.S.P.C.A. might go a stepfurther. Perhaps the member for MiddleSwanl could take its officials out to theamusement parks in his electorate with aview to seeing that these horses are pro-lper]l-y treated. Only last Saturday onehorse dropped (lead after passing the post.I'l iat the reason was I am unable to say,but evidently the race was too much for him.Let u.' be a bit considerate of the poor old

Which is forced to race to win moneyfor soine peo~ple and lose it for others. When

the member for Middle Swan talks aboutcruellyv to aninmalIs he should not forget whatis happening in his own electorate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Hon. A.V(. It. Abbott-North Perthi-in reply)8.7]: 1 listened with interest to the com-

nient on this. Bill by the member for Guild-ford-Midlaud. I understand he intends tosupport the mieasure but disagrees with someof its provisi';is. I do tnt propose to deal]low wcith his comments hut to discuss then)in Commnit tee. I agree with a lot of whitthe nmmer for Beverley said, butt this Billconcerns only domestic or cap~tive animals.The (laV will come wheni we will deal withiruelty to all animals, but that day has notyet arrived. However, T do not think thatshould preventt our- making progress as madwhen we c-all. -Nature itself is cruiel and wcehave i'iot yet conql'uered Naturie; bitt day byday wve are alleviat ingl the so Ileritig carusedby Nature's laws. This Bill is a step for-ward, if only a small one.

Question put and passed.

Bill lead a second time.

it Committee.

Mi-. Perkins in the Chair; theGeneral in charge of the Bill.

Clausie, 1 to 9-agreed to.

Attorney

Clause 10-Amiendment of Section 18:

Mr. BRADY: I have no amendment writ-ten out in connection with paragraph (b),but I feel that there should be somethingof this nature added, "provided that theemployee was advised on employment, ofhis responsibility under this section."

[5 OcToBE;, 1948.] 18

Mr. MARSHALL: I cannot agree to thisproposed new Subsection (2) because it ismost objectionable. I would not have beenso hostile to the proposal if it dealt withan employee who committed an offence with-out having been directed by the employer towork the animal concerned. If a workergoes to the owner and says, "The animal isnot fit to work because it is ill and has soreshoulders," the boss can reply, "You do asI tell you, and take the horse out." Whilethe employee is executing those orders apoliceman or an officer of the R.S.P.C.A.might examine the horse and say it is not fitto be worked. If the employee pleads that hehad told his employer it was not fit, it isno defence. He is still liable to punishment.What is the man to do? His only alter-native, even though he may have a familyto maintain, is to give up his job. That isnot fair. Things will not always be as pros-perous as they are today, when an employeecan walk out of one job into another. Surelythe Minister does not expect this to be thelaw of the land.

Mr. GRAYDEIN: The member for Mur-chison, who has criticised this clause, hasthe interests of the employees at heart, andI sympathise with him there. At the sametime, if we do not allow the Clause to remain,the R.S.P.C.A. will have wasted its timein putting up the Bill. The hon. memberhas quoted an instance of a boss orderingan employee to take out a horse that isinjured. The employee can ring up theR.S.P.C.A., or any police station. If he isprepared to take the horse out, he is deserv-ing of everything coming to him.,

Mr. Graham: What would you do withthe bossI

Mr. GRAYDEN: He is deserving ofeverything that is coming to him, too. Thiswill provide a loophole by which any em-ployee or Employer may get out of the con-sequences of illtreating an animal. Theclause should remain as it is. If we are go-ing to nullify any legislation to preventcruelty to animals simply on the pretext ofdoing an injustice to an employee who canspeak for himself, then wre have reached asorry state.

Mr. MARSHALL: What a wonderfulargument from a man with wealthy and in-dependent relations and who is himselfwithout any family.

Mr. Graham: Give him a chance,

Mr. MARSHALL: All his sympathiesare with the animal and so are mine. Thisprovision does not deal with the employer,but only with the employee who, the hon.member says can ring up a police station,and so he can. But the employee has nota grandfather who wvill leave an estate ofthousands of pounds, as has the hon. mem-ber. It is easy for a person who has notknown the pangs of hunger to talk like that.The hon. member was not battling for acrust (luring the depression period when un-fortunate starving individuals stalked the

coutrywit thir wives and children. Itwould be nice for such a man to tell theboss that a horse was injured and he wouldnot take it out, but would ring the police.He would get instant dismissal for doingthat. If the employer orders the employeeto take the horse out on the road, he mustdo so or else lose his employment, whichwould involve a sacrifice on the part of hiswife and children.

I hope some of the electors of the memberfor Middle Swan will discover his attitudein this regard, as many of them were hun-gry during the depression, and may infuture again be hungry. The hon. memberdoes not care whether the employee getsthe sack, involving his wife and children inwant, so long as a horse is not made tosuffer. Let the employer be responsible forthe horse, as he is the one who might wishthe animal to be made to suffer in order tomeet the requirements of the moment. He isthe man who should be punished for ill-using the animal, but this provision wouldthrow all the responsibility on the employee.

Mr. BRADY: I move an amendment-That at the end of the clause the following

words be added:-"Trovided that the em-ployee was advised on his employment of hisresponsibility in regard to this section.''

Air. STYANTS: I realise, as does thememiber for Murchison, that in certain in-stances the provisions of this clause wouldbe unfair to- the employee. An employeemight have sole charge of a horse and theemployer might not see its condition fromone z,,.._.d to the next. In those circum-stances the employee should be made re-sponsible if he worked an animal that wasunfit, but I can visualise the case of an em-ployee being asked to work a horse thatwas not distinctly unfit. If he mentioned itscondition to the employer the employermight examine the animal and, having

1483

1484 [ASSEMBLY.]

decided it was not unfit, order the employeeto take it out.

The employee would have to obey the mn-struction or else risk being charged withdisobedience, possibly resulting in dismissal.The Minister does not propose to provideany redress for an employee penalised inthat way. If, an employee having been in-structed to take the horse out, an inspectorof tbe R.S.P.C.A. or a constable examinedthe animal and decided it was not fit forwork, the provision in the Bill would makethe employee liable to a fine, and I cannotagree to that. In such a ease the responsi-bility should be placed on the owner. I donot think the amendment adequately coversthe position.

Mr. GRAYDEX: I support the amend-ment as I think it should be agreed torather than that the clause should be struckout altogether. We should prevent crueltybeing inflicted on animals in preference tosimply protecting the employee. The mem-ber for Murchison and I both sympatbisewith the employee, hut I have some sym-pathy also for the animal. If the clause isamended in the wvay suggested a great dealof cruelty to animals will be prevented. Thepenalty proposed for working an injuredanimal is a minimium fine of 10s., but somemembers have suggested that it is prefer-able to have cruelty inflicted on injuredanimals rather than provide such a pen-alty for the employee.

Mr. G1RAHAM: I intend to ask the Coin-mittee to vote against both the amendmentand the clause as it stands in the Bill. Theposition was amply outlined by the meni-her for Murehison and is most intolerable.It is monstrous that a manl should be corn-pelled to defy his employer and run therisk (if dismissal.

lion. A. It. Panton: It is ordering him togo Onl Strike.

Mr. GRAIIAI: Section 18 of the Actcover., the situation admirably.

Mr. Mairshall: They do not want the em-ployer but the employee to be caught.

iMr. GRAhIAM; Is it not a reasonableproposition that the employee is responsiblenod should he charged if h~e is found hand-

ling in animal unfit for work, unless he isable to Irove that he drew the attention oflis employer- to that fact, and yet, notwvith-

standing, was compelled to utilise theanimalI In such a case the employer wouldbe responsible. That is set out in the Act asit stands, and it provides all the safeguardsnecessary to ensure that the person guiltyof the offence shall be prosecuted for ill-treating the animal. That is the purposeof the Act and the Bill is designed to effectcertain improvements. If the amendment isagreed to, it relieves the situation to someextent but it certainly will not resolve thedifficulties.

Hon. A. A. M. COVERLEY: I am unableto followv the reasoning of the member forMiddle Swan or that of the member forEast Perth. I hope the Committee will sup-port the amendment which will give somelprotection to an employee, who, out of f eel-ing for an animal, is prepared to draw hisemployer's attention to that animal's condi-tion. If the employer is a master bakerand is told by his driver, "Old Nobby is abit lame and I do not think he should go outthis morning," the baker might say, "Wehave not a Spare horse in the yard and ourcustomers are waiting for the bread whichmust be delivered."

It is quite likely the master baker wouldsa 'Y that in the hope that in the early hoursof the morning the carter would return homebefore an R.S.P.C.A. inspector picked himup. However, if the employee ref uses totake a horse out under those conditions, heis quite likely to he told to collect his payand go. The employee either takes the horseout or loses his job. The amendment willat least p~rov'ide protection for an employeewhere he draws the owner's attention to ananlimal's condition. After that I hope theclause itself wvill not be agreed to becausethere is ample provision in the parent Actfor the taking of action against either anemployee or an employer who is responsiblefor anl animal being ill-treated.

Mr. LESLIE: It seems to mec that wehave reached the stage where, in order toprotect the interests of both the employerand employee and to meet the wishes ofthe Minister and the B.S.P.C.A., we arelikely to place an injustice upon somebody.I do not like the clause as it stands, nor doI like the amendment, because I do not think,it will meet the position. Mfany employeeswill consider their bread and butter first andwill take the chance of meeting a member

[5 OCTBER, 1948.] 18

of the Police Force or an inspector of theILS.P.O.A. so it is necessary to provide thatthe responsibility shall rest on the rightshoulders. If an employee who is orderedto do a job points out to his employer thecondition of an animal at the time, or whatis likely to result by the carrying out of hisorders, and is then compelled to ohey in-striuctionis against his better judgment, theresponsibility rests with the employer.

Where an employee fails to make his em-ployer aware of the likely consequences ofthe employer's order, the employer cannotthen be held responsible, because a case ofthat kind is already provided for under theAct. However, it would he wrong to saythat the employee is at fault and to passall the responsibility to him. What is re-quired is an additional proviso or an amend-ment which shall state that the employerwill not be responsible unless it can beproved that he was aware that cruelty waslikely to result. The employee would thenhave a defence that he 'had faithfully .per-formed his job as far as the employer andthe animal were concerned.

Mr. Hoar: That is in the Act now.

'Mr. LESLIE: I am not satisfied, andapparently the Crown Law Department isnot satisfied, that that section will coverthe position.

Hon. A. A.1M. Covertey: Why do you notread the Act?

Mr. LESIJiE: I1 have, but there must bea reason for the clause being in the Bill.There must be a loophole in the Act. Asthe clause stands it is too sweeping, and weshould add something to place the rlespon-sihilily on the person committing the of-fence. In view of the conflict of opinionon the matter, I suggest to the Ministerthat hie close the discuqsion and give fur-ther consideration to the clause.

Mr. BOVELL: I thank the member forKalgoorlie for his contribution to the de-batie. The fundamental point is that theblame should he attachable to the personconcerned. According to the mnember forEast Pert],. the Act at present providesthat the blame shall be attachable to theemployee. T would like to hear the Minis-ter ont the necessity for this clause. I amfully convinced that the clause should pro-vide for the blame to he attachable to eitherthe employee or the employer, but I am not

satisfied that the amendment of the memberfor Guildford -Midland will help the posi-tion materially.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: There hasbeen quite an interesting argument on theclause, and there is a, lot to be said for thepoints put forward. I do not think theamendment is wise, because. it would leadonly to endless confusion in the attempt tointerpret it if it ever came to the point tha-tthe prosecution had to prove that the em-ployee was told of his responsibility on hisengagement. Therefore, I cannot agree toit. As far as the objections to the clauseare concerned, one has to take one view orthe other. It is not easy to decide.

Hon. A. R. 0. Hawke-. Do not keep us insuspense too long!

The ATTORINEY GENERAL: I will not;no linore than the 3nember for Northamwould, in the circumstances. I think wehave reached the stage when, irrespective oforders and compulsion, we say, "'You n~ustbear the responsibility.'' If a person isaccused of beating a child, it is no defencefor him to say, "I wvqs ordered to beat thechild.'' It is just a question of what stagewe have reached in our evolution; whetherwe tvould lie justified in blaming a manwhose 'job is at stake for being cruel toan animal. After all, he may be cruel to achild hut not to an animal, because he maysutre-: us a result. However, I am in doubt-whether he would suffer today, because Ithink we have reached a stage in industrialorganisation where such a thing would nottake place. It certainly would not take))lace with any lumiper because he has agood union to protect him. If this occurredonly in connection with cruelty in the easeof a miember of that organisation I wouldnot 3aave the least sympathy, lbecause Iknow lie could protect himself and thereare members of other unions who couldamply protect themselves also. But thereare some employees -who may not be ableto protect themselves sufficiently againstthe severity of this clause. So far as I ampersonally concerned, I will leave it to theCommnit tee.

Mtr. Hoar: You are placing- the respon-sibility upon us!

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. Ifwe have not advanced far enough to enableus to Coal with cruelty to animals irrespec-tive of any question of duress, T shall he

1485

486[ASSEMBLY.]

astonished. I know it is the wish of everymember to afford the maximum protectionpossible and therefore I will leave the matterto the Committee. I recognise that there ismuch to be said both for and against theproposal.

Amendment put and a division taken withthe following result:

Ayes . .. . .. 20Noes . .. . .* 19

Majority for .

Air. BradyMr. CornellMr. CoesrieyMr. HawkeMr. HogneyMr. HoarMr. KellrMr. MannMr. MarshaUlMr. Mar

Mr. AbbottMr, AcklandMr. BaoelMr. DoneyMr. FoxMr. GrahamM r. GraydenMi.- HallMr. HillMr. McDonald

AYES.Mr. MarrayMr. NeedhatMr. PantonMr. ReadMr. ReynoldMr. ShearnMr. SleemarMrp. SmithMr. TonkinMr. Bodored

NOES'Mr. 'McLart'Mr. NinaoMr. SewardMr. StrantaMr. ThornMr. WattsMr. WildMr. YatesMr. Leslie

Amendment thus passed.

Clause, as amended, put and neg

Clauses 11 to 14, Title -reed

Bill reported with an amendrac

BILL-MARRIAGE ACT AMENIn Committee,

Mr. Perkins in the Chair; thefor Housing in charge of the Bil

Clauses 1 and 2-agreed to.

Clause 3-Amendment of Sectic'Mr. STYANTS: I would like

formation from the Minister regaproposal embodied in the new swhich seeks to add to those alreadsolemnise a marriagme, a person whmnated by a religious denominatiozpurpose of celebrating a partienringe. The 'Minister said this waride means for a couple in a retto marry without having to jourclergyman or District Registrar. Iobjection to that. However, thewent on to say-

an

On the request of a religious denomination,the Registrar General may authorise a mar-riage to be solemnised by some lay person whois not a district registrar of mnarria ges whereit is desired that the marriage shbould takeplace in a remote area in which there is nodistrict registrar or clergyman empowered toofficiate in a matter of that kind. The par-son to celebrate the marriage in such a ease isto be nominated by the religious body con-cerned,

The proposed new subsection does not saythat. It says--

In respect to any particular marriage, anyperson whose name, designation, religious de-nomination and usual place of residence havelbeen registered according to law in the officeof the Registrar General as authorised to cele-brate that particular marriage.

No reference is made to nomination by areligious body. Does the Minister proposeto make provision, as he indicated, by way

a of regulation') If so, I object. The lawtpiiilera) provides for civil and church marriages, and

a couple in a remote area not desiring tobe mnarried by the church should be able tomake application to the nearest DistrictRegistrar for the nomination of a personto celebrate that marriage, I should like toknow exactly what the Minister means.

(reller.) The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Aprovision by which at the request of a re-ligious denomination, a lay person may be

gatived. nominated in a remote area to celebrate imarriagec is contained in the complementary

to. measure-the Births, Deaths and Marriagesnt. Act Amendment Bill, and there is need for

an ancillary provision in this statute to link

DMENT. up with that provision. Section 5 of the.Marriage Act provides that a minister ofreligion or the District Registrar and none

Minister other may celebrate marriages. If we pro-I. ride for marriages in remote areas as sug-

gested, then we need to add to the list ofpeople nathorised to celebrate marriamg a

in 5: third class, namely, a person nominated for

some in- a partictilar marriage.rding the Mr. Styants: Why nominated by a re-ubsection, ligious denomination instead of by they able to couple conicerned I0 is now- The 'MINISTER FOR HOUSING: ThatI ftr tIk- matter could be argued. This is a new pro-latr mar- vision. The Registrar General was anxiousa to Pro- to have it so framed as to meet with thenote area full approbation of the religious organisa-ney to a [ions. It was thought that a religious organ-

have no isation might agree to a marriage beingMinister solemn ised by a lay person if it could nom-

inate that person.

1486

[5 Ocrouza, 1948.] 18

Ron. J1. B. Sleeman:- What if it were amnixed marriage?

The MINISTER, FOR HOUSING: Thenthe provision would not operate because theconsent of the religious organ isation couldnut be obtained, A religious body might notlne disposed to have the ceremony performedby a person nominated by the parties, whomight not exercise the discretion and judg-ment that a religious body would. I havediscussed the suggestion made on the sec-ond reading that the provision might he ex-tended to allow, at the request of the par-ties, a lay person to be nominated by theRegistrar General to conduct a marriageac-ording to the ordinary form of registry(bllive marriag'es, If the member forM1urehison moves an amendment to thateffect, I shall have no0 objection to it. Thepresent proposal, with any addition mem-hers, might think fit to include power tohave marriages celebrated according to reg-istry office form, might be useful and, asnow drawn, it might well be left in thisform, beeause care has been taken not torun counter to the suscep tibili ties or feel-ings of religious bodies,

Mr. STYANTS: From the M1inister's ex-planation. I gather that he proposes; to give-effuet in the complementary Bill-Registra-tion of Births, Deaths and Marriages ActAinendmient Bill-to what I wish. The Billno(w hdore us~ does not pirovide that thelay person has to lie nominated by a religi-ous denomination; that point is left open.A lay 1 'erson, registered with the Re-gistrarGeneral, Could perform the marriage.

The Mlinister for Housing.- That is so.

Mr. -TYANTS: I am therefore pre-pared to wait until the mnember for Mfur"hi-.,on moves his amendment to the other Bill.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 4-Repeal Of Sction 9 and SOb-stitution of new section:

M1r. LESLIE: This clause is an attemptto bring the law in Western Australia intoline with what prevails in many other partsof the British Empire as regards a parentwithholdinr consent to the marriage of aioin'.r. There the minor has a right ofappeal to a higher authority. Like the mem-ber for 'Kalgoorlie, I do. not wish any inter-ference with the family unit; but I am will-ing to concede that where the decision restswith a single parent or with the legal guar-

diau of a minor, it is possible that prejudiceor perhaps selfishness may be the cause ofwithholding the consent unreasonably. Iwould not for a moment agree that a sita-lar set; of circumistances is likely to arisewhere both lparents are living together andwhere the consent of both is withheld.

Here I consider that to trepass upon thefamily life is definitely outside the func-tions cf a Government. Both parents wouldthen be acting in the best interests of thechild. Suppose the parents are not so act-ing, then we must admit that up to thetime the minor asks for consent there isharmony in the home. But if provision ismade that the child has an appeal againstthe decision of his parents, then immediatelythere will be created family trouble and dis-cord, which might result in the breaking upof what otherwise was a good home. Itmight be suggested that Subsection (2) ofthe proposed new section would apply onlywhere the consent of an individual parentwas required. I am not satisfied on this,point. I wish to make certain that the con-sent of bothL parents must he obtained whensuch parents are living together and that insuch ease the muinor hans no appeal. I movean amendment-

That ut thc cad of Subsetin (2-) tof thepropose-d new section the following proviso lieadded:-''Provided that the Court shall notvtitrttui n dy such iiiiiiicitiaii whlere' ti' con3-sent to the maan iage hog, been refused by bothMIpetS WhenI suchI parents are living together.''

When the parents are separated, it is thecustomi that one piarenit only shiall have thecustod -i of' the child and that pareut is theone who-le consent is required.

The 'MINISTER FOR HOUSING:-There is some ,,writ in the amendment inimposing this degree of limitation on theright of appeal from tfhe refusal of the con-sent to a marriage. I sin therefore preparedto support it.

Mr. STYANTS: The amendment is animprovement on the Bill, but 'neverthelessI cannot support a provision which wouldallow a magistrate or a judge to [)veflidlthe decision of a parent as to whether hischild should be permitted to eater into amarriapsv before attaining the age of 21years. Alt members realise the value of thefamily unit, which is the foundation stone.up-on which our social system is erected. Igo fur'her. I say it is the sheet anchor ofour civilisalon. Any law whic-h would tend

1487

148s [ASSEMBLY.)

to interfere with or override the authorityof the parent is, in my opinion, a retrogradestep. The law at present holds the parentsresponsible for the actions of their childrenuntil they reach the age of 21 years; yet,in this, which I consider one of the mostimportant steps a boy or girl can take, theBill proposes that there shall he an appealagainst the decision of a parent who bqreared and educated the child.

I do not think anything could be moreconducive to undermining the authority ofparents over their children than a measureof this kind. We are told by those whohave studied this question that lack ofparental control is responsible for muchchild delinquency. Yet the Bill proposes totake away control from parents who areprepared to exercise it in the matter ofpreventing a rash act that their childrenmay be contemplating. Imagine the psycho-logical effect this will have upon some pre-cocious children; because I am of theopinion that a boy or girl who wishes to bemarried before the age of 21 may he gener-ally considered to be of an impulsive, pre-cocious nature, particularly when it is real-ised that the average age at which femalesin Australia marry is 25%2 years; and thatof males, 28% or 29 years.

I would like to ask members who theyconsider would be the most competent judgesof what is in the best interests of children-their parents, or public servants whowould approach the matter in a casual,coldly official way. I do not think there isany doubt that the parents would be thebest judges. There are certain people, par-ticularly members of the legal fraternity,who have an unlimited faith in magistratesand judges. I admit that in matters of lawI bow to their findings; but when it comesto a question of who is most qualified tosay what is in the best interests of boysand girls and howv to ensure their success-ful marriage, I consider that it is theparents who have borne and reared themrather than magistrates or judges, no mat-ter how good the motives by which theymight be actuated.

Amongst my few magisterial acquaint-ances I know two at least who have mostunorthodox ideas upon marriage and theupbringing of children, and I would notlike them to have a say as to what shouldhe done with any children of mine. As a

matter of fact, I have no axe to rind, be-cause my children are over 21 and are mar-ried; hut I do not want to see somethingfoisted on to other parents that I wouldobject to having foisted on me if my child-ren were under 21.

In introducing the measure the Minister,in extenuation of the proposal to grant tothe mother as well as to the father the rightof refusing consent to the marriage of aminor, said that the marriage might not bea provident one in the parents' opinion. Iagree a marriage might not have the prospectof being a provident one, and might havethe prospect of being something very muchworse; but I want members to realise thatif parents object to a marriage, the childwill have the right to go to a magistrate ora judge who may overrule the decision ofthe parents. I know of a case in which aprospective son-in-law appeared to be quitenornial, whereas there was in fact a taintof insanity in his family. The parents ofthe girl who wished to marry him had beenlifelong- friends of the boy's parents, buthad kept from the girl the knowledge ofthis taint, just as the boy's parents hadkept it from him.

Suppose the parents of such a girlobjected to her being married to such aman, then under the Hill she could go toa magistrate or a judge and seek to haveher parents' decision overruled. Theparents would then have to state the rea-son for their refusal, and so the familyskelton of the other party would have tohe taken out of the cupboard and draggedaround the court-room. Imagine the feel-ings of the young fellow who would thusbe made to realise for the first time thetaint of iasanity in his family!

In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,parents have a solid reason for refusing toallow their children who are under age tobe married. There may be cases where con-sent is refused through vindictiveness aris-ing out of family quarrels, but I think theywould be very rare.

If a balance were struck between cases ofvindictiveness and those where parentsotherwise object to a marriage, we wouldfind it would be definitely against vindictive-ness.

The Minister for Education: What do yonpropose to do with the amendmentl

[5 OcToBER, 1948.] 1489

Afr. STYANTS: It is an improvementon the Bill, hut we should not have eventhat. A parent should have a definite rightas against a judge or magistrate. This willcreate a good deal of domestic discord. Evenwhen one parent objects, the same pointthat I have raised, of dragging out thefamily skeleton, will operate. The motheror father of the protesting child will haveto go before the magistrate and disclose thereasons for objecting. Fromt that point ofview, the amendment is just as objection-able as the provision in the Bill. Last week,representatives of the "Daily News" ap-proached the leaders of certain women'sorganisations in Perth to get their opinionson this matte;, and apparently I have someallies. It might be worth while to read tilereport in the "Daily News," It is as foll-lowvs:-

Leaders of two Perth women's organisationsare opposed to the Marriage Act AmendmentBill, which passed the second reading in theLegislative Assembly last nright.

The Bjill proposes to give a person under 21the right of appeal to a1 Supreme Court judgeagainst any refusal of consent to marriage. Italso gives the right to grant or refuse consentto the mother as Avell as the father.

'U1 think it is very inadvisable legislation,''said president Mrs. R. E. Pratt, of the W.A.National Council of Women.

''It would cause n feeling of disruption inathe home which does not exist at present.''

It was possible at present in special circum-stances, for a magistrate to give consent forminors to marry, and that provision was allthat was necessary Mrs. Pratt said.

"'I daresny some parents arc too hard, butI don'7t think that ap)plies to the average motheror father-as usual, the innocent must sufferfor the guilty,'' she said.

President Mrs. B. MW. Risebbietli, of theWomen's Service Guilds, said that her firstreaction to the proposed amendme,,t w~as thatit was ''a very unwise piece of legislation.''

I ask members to give this ai personal ap-plication, and consider what their re-actions would he if one of their childrencontemplated entering into an alliance witha member of a family where there was somewell known mental or physical taint, orwvhere the parents had a criminal record,or were Tiot of good moral character. AlsoI ask them to imagine their feelings if theyhad to go before a judge and disillusion theopposite p)arty. If the judge decided toagr-ee with the parents, the girl and boymight go to another district and make false

declarations, as they frequently do, and getmarriedl, or they might decide to wait untilreaching the age of 21 years before gettingmarriad, or they might not go on with itat all, but one thing is certain, that in thesecircumstances there wvould be a life-longestrangement betwveen the son or daughter-ia-law and] the father and mother-in-law.There is very little to recommend this pro-posal. The piresent Act works very well.I hope the Conmmittee will reject the amend-meat and what is suggested in the Bill.

Mri% NEEI)IIAM: The amendment is thelesser of two evils, but I intend to voteagaiinst both it and the clause. Parliamentis going out of its wvay in this ease to inter-fere with other people's business. This isan attempt to bring in legislation to satisfythe demands of a very small section of thecommunity. It has always been contendedthat legislation is for the greatest good or.the greatest niumber. That does not applyhere. I agree with the member for Kalgoor-lie that legislation such as this wouldbe injurious to the unity of the family.There is no gainsaying the fact that ourChristian way of life is based on the familyunit. I hope the day wili niever arrive wvhenthis o- ainy other Parliament in the BritishCommonwealth of Nations will pass legisla-tion of this nature. We have all heard itsaid that an Englishnm's home is his castle,and the Britisher is very careful who shallinterfere with his privilege of being masterin his own home. Surely this would be aninterference, in that regard, with the parentsof a child who elects to marry and seeksthe consent of the father and mother.

The member for Kalgoorlie has ablystaled that no magistrate, judge or regis-trar can take the place of the father andmother in a matter such as this. If theparents do not know whether consent to themarriage should be given, how can anyother personl make such a decision? If thisprovision became law I believe there wouldbe an increase in the number of divoreeass, whlich is already far too high. Inrecent times we have read in the Press ofa great number of divorces, many of whicharose in the Case Of marriages contractedduring the war period.

This Committee should do nothing tofacilitate hasty marriages that may lendto a life of unpleasantness for the partiesconcerned. The Minister, when introduc-

1490 [ASSEMBLY.]

ing the Bill, probably did not think it wouldhave that effect, hut I feel we should beextremely careful in interfering with the

hic-life of our peo ple in a mna tor asdelicate as this i-. The measure cmiii] bethe i'an~v otftathcr% and mothers having incourt to it veal in full the domiestic troublesthat they v ould wishi to keep to themselves.It would lead to skeletons in family cup-lboards ticing exposedI to the public view. Ifeel that the Committee should not only re-ject the au,ondluvent, buat all of this provi-, ion.

Mr. LESLIE: I am astonished at themetmber t or Perth suggesting, that myamendment, the purlpose of which is to main-tain the -ant-tit tv of famiily life and the home,should be rejected. I believe that in suchmatte r, the, ('eision should lie with thelarents, and I do not see how the memberfor Perth (i an reconcile that fact with hisdesire that the Comnmittee should not agreeto the amendment. Where p~arents areseparated the family unit has already goneby the board. Mfy aim is to see to it thatthe famnily' unit is not broken up by someaction on the part of a child. No parent,no matter how misguided, would wait untilthe skeleton in the cupboard had to be re-vealed in public before making the membersof the family, who were concerned convers-ant with the real reason for objection tothe mnarriagre taking place. When parentsare living together and endeavouring tobring up tl:c-ir children in the Christian wayof life no-one bas any right to interfere,and the purpose of my amendment is toprevent such interference,

The 'MINISTERI FOR EDUCATION:The Minister in charge of the Bill hasagreed 1o the amendment moved by themember for Mt. M1arshall, who says he doesnot desire to see any right of appeal wherethe parenLs are living together. On thatbasis the arguments raised by the memberfor Kalgoorlie and the member for Perthare substantially in favour of the amend-ment. If the amendment is agreed to theonly case where there will be a right ofappeal will he where the parents are notliving together and have refused to grantconsent to the marriage. I have some reasonto believe that circumstances of that naturewere the genesis of this proposal.

When I sat on the other side of the HouseI iflOIe representations to the Chief Secre-

tory of that dlay for an amendment such asthis to Ibe incorp)orated in this legislation.From the communications I received the in-dieations were that the matter was beingconsidered favou ro bly at that time by theChief Secretary's Department, hut I eon-c'11(11 it wa~i julJoesiIblc to take any actionbiefore the general election that intervenedsomle months later. The circumstances thatI reprv~entrd to the Chief Seeretary of that(lay wero these; a husband and wif'e, having'a daughter 19 years of' age, had for manyyears lived together quite happ 'ily. But twoor three years prior to the daughter becomi-ing 19, the father had become an inveteratedrunkard.

The result was that the family showedevery sign of breaking up, because underthe influence of liquor his behaviour towardshis wife and daughter became despicable. Toprotect the interests of bo0th her daughterand herself, the mother made applicationto a magistrate for a separation order butupon consideration, and on the advice of.her solicitor, it was substituted for an agree-.ment for separation between the parties.She mad" no claim for maintenance because,having an occupation before her marriage,she was quite prepared to resume this oc-cupation arid make no claim in the circuin-.stances. That was her idea and I am merelyciting the instance.

The solicitor advised her to place in theagreement a small amount of either 10s. or£1l. a week, to which she consented. A coupleof years after the husband and wife wereseparated the daughter wished to get mar-ried to a desirable young luau. She wasthen 1.0 years of age and the Act providedthat the consent of the father should be oh-tauned. The, father was found and still hadjurisdiction and therefore no applicationcould be made to a Justice of the Peace forconsent, and both the girl and her motherwrote to the father and explained the cir-cumstances, The father was acquainted withthe young mnan prior to the family beingsplit up and both the girl and her motherasked him to give his consent. Ile refusedand stated that for all he cared she couldremain single until she was 21.

Those circumstancs are not necessarilyunique because at least one other similarcase has come under my notice sine thattime, and it is reasonable that thjere shouldbe sonic institution or individual wbo can

[5 OCTOBER, 1948.] 1491

overcome what was nothing more nor less,in those circumstances, than hastiness on thepart of the father. It had nothing whateverto do with the suitability of the contractingparties or with the maintenance of theChristian way of life. I was prepared origin-ally to support the Bill aA it stood but Ifrankly admi-t that having heard thearguments iiut forward by the member forMit. 'Marshall, I agree with his amendment.When the parties arc living together andthere is a friendly relationship betweenthem, it is undesirable that a third partyshould be brought into the question, hut, inosuch an instance as I mentioned, it is de-sirable that the legislature should give somecojnsideration to a meains whereby this stateof affairs can be p~revented. In that casethe mother, who was helping to maintainthe girl, was quite satisfied with the suit-ability of the intended bridegroom, yet themother had no rights to enable her to giveconsent without obtaining that of the fatheras well. I hope the Committee will agree tothe aniendient.

Mr. STYANTS: The amendment movedby, the member for t.Marshall goes somedistance and makes the provisions of the Billless objectionable but it does not remove allthe objections. It does not even preservethe family unit as suggested by the Minis-ter for Education. Take the ease of at widowwho bag reared her family and one of thechildren, ether hay or girl, decides to makei. suitable match! If she refuses to giveconsent, it is left to the son or daughter, ast he case may be, to take piroceedings beforea magistrate or judge in order to overrideher decision, although she has in effect beenthe means of keeping the family unit to-gether after the death of her husband.

Exactly the same conditions prevail sofar as a widlower is concerned. It might alsohappen that a wife deserts her husband andchildren, and the husband is forced to makeprovision for the rearing of the childrenand keep the home going- because the motherhad gone beyond the stage of being interest-ed in the family. If the mother decides togive consent to a son or daughter beingmarried, it does not matter whether it is asuitable union or not, the father's objectioncan be overridden by the child, either boyor girl, taking the case to court and havingthe objection overruled.

The argument put up by the member forMt. M1arshall against mine that in the caseof a taint of insanity or physical defect theobject-ng parents would not hide it fromtheir child is quite reasonable. However, itdoes not hold when the objecting parentsreveal the grounds of their objection to theprospective daughter or son-in-law. In fact,it would be with the greatest reluctance thatpeople would go even to a magistrate, andreveal iii the presence of the young man orwoman to whom they were objecting the factthat at least at sonic time their antecedentshad a particular taint.

I will admit that the case submitted bythe Minister for Education could occur, Ilutthere was no great hardship inflicted on thegirl in question as she was only 19. It isan established fact that a higher percentageof juvenile marriages finish up in theDivorce Court than of those that take placeinter in life, and by that I do not mean 30or 40 years of age. In normal circumstancesmy advice to young people would be not toget married at 19 years of age. At that agethey want to see something of the world andobtain some further mature knowledge iftheir marriage is to be successful. If theamendment is agreed to it will still leavemany objectionahle points in the Bill. Ihope the Committee will not agree to eitherthe Bill or the proposed amendment.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: I in-timated that I fav-oured this amendment. In

my' opinion the limitation on the power toappeal is justified, but I have not dealt withthe broader question which has been dealtwith by the member for Kalgoorlie andother members as I thought I would dothat on the general clause, but as the dis-cussion has ranged over that aspect I hopeI may be permitted to say a few words. Tam advised that this provision is the law inaill the other States and New Zealand. Itwas accepted 23 years ago by the 1fouPeof Lords in England and the Lords Spiritualwho comprise part of the members of thatChamber and it is still the law. As far asI know, no dire consequences have ensuedeither in the 23 years of English applica-tion or in the period that this law has beenin forc in Australian States and New Zea-land.

An Englishman's home is his castle, but Ithink if one goes to the home nowadays it

1492 [ASSEMBLY.)

wvill be found that the young people of 15and onwards are seldom there. In manycountries persons at the age of 18 can electParliamevntary representatives and take partin forming the Government. I differ fromthe nmember for Kalgoorlie when he suig-gested that parents wvere liable for childrenup to 21 years of age. Their liability cea.-esalmost entirely when the children are 16.

WYhilst I aippreiiate the honourable a p-proach of the members for Kalgoorlie andIPerth in this matter, I thizik they are takingfar too apprehensive a. viewv of this legisla-tion. It is not new; it is old. Wheni wedeal with the ease of the prospective son-iln-law ii. whose family there might be mnan-it ,v or some other factor, as the memberfor Kalgoorlie has said, it may be only ayear or two when the child reaches 21 thatthe parent would have to choose to disclosethe fact or not. The idea in the minds ofparent.4 of one party about the antecedentsof the other party may he quite untrue auiton sueh false ideas they will intervene and]pr'event the marriage taking place. In thecomparatively few cases where this ariseswe need not lay, undue emphasis on thi-aspect. bearin'T in mind that if it does ariseit will be within a fcew months or a yearor two when the minor becomes 21 y'earsof age. If the Committee carries this amend-ment there will be no appeal to a judge.The appeal will he allowed when there is

~only, one goardian parent concerned whowould take less interest in the ease thanwould a judge or magistrate.

Mr. Styants: Will you miak-e provisionfor the widow or widower in the amend-mieat?

The MINXISTER FOR HOUSING: If wego as far as the member for Mt. Marshalldesires, then we may simply leave the clauseas it is. The "Parent" may be a guardian,an individual parent or a justice as the eagemay he. If there are two parents livingtogether and they do not agree, there willbe discord. It would be far better to havea responsible person settle the matter.Judges and magistrates deal with thesefamily matters day by day, and determinethe custody of even children of the mosttender ages.

Hon. E. H. H. Hall: But that would bein exceptional cases.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Theydecide matters affecting matrimonial re-lations every day.

Mr. Styants: But those matters are quitedifferent from this.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: I donot think they are different at all. Judgesand magistrates have a sense of responsi-bility in dealing with cases affecting familyrelations, and, with the safeguard in theamendment now proposed, we may reason-ably provide that young people who maybe IS or 20 years of age-they ore quiteable to make up their own minds, havebeen away from the family circle for yearsearning their own living or running a busi-ness or having acquired a profession oroccupation, who wish to get married, buttheir parents' consent is refused-may havesome independent, impartial person towrhom they may appeal.

Mr. NEEDHAM: The member for 21t.Marshall expressed surp~rise at my opposi-tion to his amendment and contended thathis proposal would preserve family unity.I oppose his amendment because, by a laterone he intends to. move, he is to undo whathe seeks to accomplish by his presentamendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon.member is not entitled to discuss an amend-ment that has not yet been moved,

Mr. NEEDHAM: Quite so! The amend-ment is not deserving of support unlessaltered to ensure that family unity isthoroughly protected.

Mr. 'MARSHALL: I move-That progress be reported.

Motion put and negatived.

Hon. J. B. SLEEMAN: As it appearsthat the Bill will be passed, together withthe amendment proposed, it all dependsupon the angle from which the whole mat-ter is viewed. I have heard of forgottenmen, but in this instance there is the for-gotten girl. I know of several cases thatsuggest parents are not alwvays reasonable.There was an instance not many years ago

fagirl who got into trouble and theyoung man concerned wished to marry her.His parents decided he was much too goodfor the girl, refused their consent to themarriage and kept at him so that eventu-ally his mind was poisoned against the girl

[5 OaToRnn, 1948.1 1493

and be did not marry her. I would liketo see the clause amended to make provi-sion to meet cases of expediency where theparents are obstinate, and to allow of ap-peals to a judge or magistrate.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Themember for Fremnantle is quite right insaying that eases such as lie mentioned doarise, but I think it would be difficult andpossibly invidious if we were to endeavourto frame an amendment to deal with speci-fic cases of that description.

Hon. A. H. Panton: Hear, bear!

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Theclause will help to protect a girl placed ina position such as that mentioned by themember for Fremantle. I think it betterto ensure that the Bill contains a principle,for we cannot restrict ourselves to indi-vidual cases. We must take a broad view.

Mr. STYANTS: I move-That the amendment be amended by insert-

ing after the word ''together'' the words ''orin the case of where one parent is ded1

The amendment wvill provide the widow, orwvidowver, with the same jurisdiction as. isprovided for parents who are living andresiding together.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: I can-hot support the amendment on the amend-muent. An individual parent may not beright in his attitude and may not haveseen his child for years.

Mr. Styants: Or he may have rearedhim and educated him, and the child mayeven be living with him.

The IMINISTER FOR HOUSING: Quiteso, or he may have been away front homeearning his own living for years. While Isupport the original amendment with noappeal where the two parents are livingtogether and refuse their consent, wherethere is only one of the parents living it isa different matter. We should rpreserve toa minor who desires to get married theright to have reference to an independentpersoa if one parent refuses to give eon-

Amendment on amendment put and adivision taken with the following result:-

AyesNoes .

-. -. 14-. .. .. 23

Majority against . 9

Mr' AcklandMr. Brad,Mr. PeaMir. HognoyMr. KellyMr. bMarsh.llMr. Ma,

Mr. AbbottAtr. naoelMr. CornellAir. ConeyMUr. GchamnMr. ArnytenMr. HallMr. HillMr. HoarIf,. McDonaldMir. MeLartyMr. Nhumo

Amendmentlived.

Ares

Noss.

Mu~rray

St rantsTonlon

Mr.Mir.M'.Mr.Mr.Air.Mr.

M r.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Iflr.Mr.Mr.Mr..Ar.

on amendment tius nega-

Amendment put and passed.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: 1move an amendment-

That the following words be added to tlheproposed new Subsection (4):-' The jurisdic-tion of the Court shall be exercised in (ham-

This Will make the position certain.

Amendment put anid passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5-Repeal of Section 11 and sub-stitution of new section:

*#Mr. STYANTS: I cannot understandwhat is intended by portion of the proposednew section. I cannot see that it even makessense. Provision is made for certificates tobe in triplicate. In the case of a marriageperforned by a minister, the provision isall right, but I cannot make sense of whatis required as to the disposition of thethree copies of the certificate in a marriagecelebrated by a District Registrar. That por-tion of the proposed flew section reads-and such district registrar or officiatingminister shall, immediately after the marriage,deliver one of such certificates to one of theparties to the marriage and shall keep anotherof such certificates as a record of the marriage.In the case of a marriage celebrated by a dis-trict registrar, the renmaining or third certifi-cate, together with the second certificate herein-'before referred to, shall be registered by himimmediately after the warriage.

What is required in the ease of a marriagecelebrated by a District Registrar is thathe shall hand one copy to the contractingparties, keep the second copy and sendthe third copy to the Registrar General.That, however, cannot be read into thewording I have quoted. There is no pro-

ReadReynoldsRod ored.RewardShearsiSmeithThoritWattsWildYate.Lesle

1494 [ASSEMBLY.]

vision for the recording of the third(ertificate by the Registrar General. If ac-cepted, the amendment will provide that theriegistrar shall deliver one of such certifi-eates to one of the parties to the marriageand keep another as a record of the mar-riage; ill tile case of a mnarriage by a Dis-trict Registrar, tile remaining or third cer-tificate shall be transmitted by him within14 days to the Registrar General. In thecase of a marriage celebrated by a minis-ter of religion, the remaining third certi-ficate shall he transmitted by him within14 days to the registrar of the districtwhere the malrriage was celebrated. I moveain amendment-

That in lines 10, 17 and 18 the words "'to-gethir with the second certiflite hereinheforen'enred tn shall he registered by hin immc-dratel v after the mnarriage'' be struvk out withaI yien to inserting other words.

The MINISTER FOR HOU'SING: Ifully %ympathise with the member for Kal-goorlie nu the difficulty of interpreting, thereferenves to marriage certificates in thetwo Bills which we hare been considering.At first. I thought he was on the righttrack, hut now I have grave doubts, be-cause although by the Bill both the regis-trar and the minister of religion are re-(quired to make out three copies of the cer-till".ate of marriage, I find on looking atthe parent Arts and also at the Bills, thatwhen it eotnes to what the registrar does,the measures speak of registering the certi-ticaites, arnd apiparently the technical mean-ing of that is the fiing- of the certificates.The comiplementary Bill, if I may he per-mitted to refer to it, provides that theregm.trnr shall tranismit dlnplicates of mar-riage eRificates. In a latter part of thatBill it is provided that every District Reg-istrar, immediately after a marriage eple-brated by him, shiall register in duplicatethe severail pairticulars relating to themar-riagTe. So, apparently, when) the copies arefiled in the office of the Registrar Generaland in the office of the District Registrar,that is cuHlledI registering.

Mr. "styants: It does not make sense.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: An dtherefore, inl the proposed section referredto by the member for Kalgoorlie, the regis-trar is required to register not only thecopy which he retains, hut the second copyas well.

Mr. STYANTS: The Bill does not makeany provision for the second and thirdcopies of the certificate to be sent to theRegistrar General. The Minister is read-ing another Bill to show what ought to beincluded in the Bill before the Committee.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Thetwo Bills must he read together. One is aBill to provide for the performance of themarriage; the other a Bill to register a mar-riage.. I suggest that the member for Kal-goorlie might be good enough to withdrawthe amendment and I will undertake toconsult the Registrar General and the Par-liamentary Draftsman. If there is any am-higuitj or mistake, I will have the clauserecommitted.

M r. STYANTS: It seems to me ratherpeeculiar that, in order to justify an am-biguity in the Bill before us, the Ministerhas to refer to another Bill. Even so, Iam still of the opinion that there is norelationship between the measures as faras concerns this provision in thie measurebefore us. The Bill to which the Ministerreferred deals with the registration ofbirths, deaths and marriages; and this par-tienlar provision is for the disposal of thethree copies of the marriage certificate anddoes not refer to registration at all. It i6a matter of who is going to have possessionof the three copies. One portion of theBill states that the District Registrar shallretain one copy but there is no reference asto who shall have the third copy. The in-,formation I have from the Registrar Vien-eral 's Department is that the DistrictRegistrar hands one copy to the contractingparties, keeps one for himself and sends oneto the Registrar- General. But in view ofthe fact that the Minister has at doubtwhether this provision is correctly wordedto provide what is wanted, and his assur-irnee that hie will consult the RegistrarOcnaral anid wvill have the measure re-commit ted if necessary, I am prepared towithdraw my amendment. I feel certainit will he found that the Bill has beenwrongly worded.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 6 to 10, Title-agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

1494

[7 OrronERa, 194H.] 1495

ADJOURNKENT-SPEOIAL.

THE PREMIER (Hon. D. R. Mebarty-Murray-Wellington): I move-

That the House at its rising adjourn till4.30 pa., on Thursday, the 7th October, 1943.

Question put and passed.

House adjoun ed at 10.14 p.m.

%r-isfatar b zzmbg

Thursday, 7th October, 1948.

CONTENTS.

Questions : Coalmlning-(a) as to observanceof labour covenants ...........

(b) as to production on Black Diamondleass.......... .....

Traffic, as to car parking, RiversideDrive .... .. 4TB- ..Health) as to treatment oTB. Subjects

Electoral, as to ensuring accuracy of rollsRailways, as to fitting of spark-arresters

Leave of absence... ..Eillis: Government Railways Act Amend-

ment, it. ... ..Western Australian Government Tram-

ways and Ferries, ir. .... .... ...Justices Act Amendment, Ir.. ..Mining Act Amendment, ir.....Matrimonial Causes and Personal Status

Code, ir. ... .. ... ..Poultry Industry (Trust Fund), ir.Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance)

Act Amendment, ir. .... .... ..Workers' Conmpensation Act Amend-

ment, further report ...........Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Amendment, report -.. ..Factories and Shops Act Amendment ,3S., passed . ... .. ..Licensing Act Amendment, Sr., passed ...Marriage Act Amendment, report ..West Australian Club (Private), adop-

tion of report of Select Committee ..Feeding Stuffs Act Amendment, Corn ....Meliess Hlousing Trust Act Amendment

(No. 2), 2r...... ......... ...

Page

71495

'495

14951498149614981497

1496

149614981496

14961496

t497

1497

1497

149714971497

14971497

1503

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

QUESTIONS.

COALMINING.

(a) As to ObseraAce of LabourCovenants.

Mr. MARSHALf, asked the Minister re-pres'nting the Minister for M1ines:

Will he consider taking the necessaryactin to prevent any coal mining companyoperatingr at Collie from invreas;ing its pre-sent holding area until such time as suchcompany complies with tile labour cove-nants of the Mining Act?

The 'MINISTER FOR HOUSING re-plied:

Yes, consideration wvill be givenc.

(bi) As to Production on Black Diamond.Leases.

.1r. -MARSHALL asked the Minister re-presenting the Minister for Mines:

(1) Has any agreement been signed be-tween the Government and the Amalgam-ated Collieries (W.A.) Limited for theproduction of coal on leases and tenementsknown as the Black Diamond Lcases?

(2) Is the Amalgamated Collieries(WV..A.) Limited doing, or has it engagedany other party to do, any active miningoperations on tenements or leases returnedto it froma the State Electricity Comm is-Sion

(3) If so, just what is the nature of thework being performed?-7

The 'MINISTER FOR HOUSING re-plied:

(I) Correspondence has passedl betweenthe parties which forms the basis of anagre~mcelt which has not yet been signed.

(2) Yes.

(3) Clearing overburden in order to ex-tract from open cut.

TRAFFIC.

As to Car Parking, Riverside Drive.

Mr. GRAHAMN asked the Minister forLands:

W'hat steps have been taken to establisha car-parking area on the land hounded byRiverside Drive, Repatriation Department,Government House Gardens and ChristianBrothers' College, which was set aside forthat purpose last year at his instigation?