victoria · doncaster broadmeadows swan hill ... biggins, supervisor, electrician p. brabender,...

VICTORIA

PARL~NTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT-

SESSION COMMENCING 1976

IJ egi.alatiue Cttunu!i! nub litgislatiut Al1l1tudtlg

YEAR 1977

VOL. cccxxxm

{From September 6, 1977, to October 9, 1977/

MELBOURNE: F. D. ATKINSON, GOVERNMENT PRINTER

wqr ~nUrrtlnr

His Excellency the Honorable SIR HENRY ARTHUR WINNEKE, K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., O.B.E., K.ST.J., Q.C.

wqr ijirutrtltttlt-~nUrrtlnr

The Honorable SIR JOHN McINTOSH YOUNG, K.C.M.G.

Premier, Treasurer, and Minister of the The Hon. R. J. Hamer, E.D., M.P. Arts

Deputy Premier, and Minister of Education

Chief Secretary

Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Federal Affairs

Minister for Minerals and Energy

Minister for Conservation, Minister of Lands, and Minister of Soldier Settle-ment

Minister of Transport ..

Minister of Agriculture

Minister of Public Works

Minister of Special Education

Minister of Health

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

Minister of Water Supply, and Minister of Forests

Minister for State Decentralization, Tourism

Development and and Minister of

Minister of Labour and Industry, and Minister of Consumer Affairs

Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Assistant Minister of Health

Minister of Housing, and Minister for Planning

Attorney-General

"

"

"

"

" " "

" " . ,

"

"

"

"

"

"

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

V. O. Dickie, M.L.C.

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

J. C. M. Bal(our, M.P.

W. A. Borthwick, M.P.

J. A. Rafferty, M.P.

I. W. Smith, M.P.

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

A. H. Scanlan, M.P.

W. V. Houghton, M.L.C.

B. J. Dixon, M.P .

F. J. Granter, M.L.C.

D. G. Crozier, M.L.C.

R. R. C. Maclellan, M.P.

WaIter Jona, M.P.

G. P. Hayes, M.P.

Haddon Storey, Q.C., M.L.C.

Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet: J. H. Ramsay, Esquire, M.P.

atmbtfll uf t4t ~tgislattut Cltuul1til

FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT-FIRST SESSION.

MEMBER

Block, P. D. Bradbury, A. K. Campbell, W. M. Chamberlain, B. A. Crozier, D. G. Dickie, V. O. Dunn, B. P. Eddy, R. J. Elliot, D. G. Evans, D. M. Foley, Dr. K. J. Fry, W. G. Galbally, J. W., Q.C. Gleeson, S. E. .. Granter, F. J. .. Grimwade, F. S. Guest, J. V. C ... Hamilton, H. M., E.D ... Hauser, V. T. .. Hider, C. A. M.

PROVINCE

Boronia North Eastern East Yarra Western Western Ballarat North Western Thomastown Melbourne North Eastern Boronia Higinbotham Melbourne North South Western Central Highlands Bendigo Monash Higinbotham Nunawading Monash

MEMBER

Houghton, W. V. Howard, Dr. R. W. Hunt, A. J. Jenkins, O. G .. . Knight, A. W .. . Knowles, R. I. .. Landeryou, W. A. Long, R. J. McDonald, S. R. Reid, N. B. Saltmarsh, D. N. Stacey, N. F. .. Storey, Haddon, Q.C. Taylor, J. A. Thomas, H. A ... Trayling, I. B. Wait on, J. M. Ward, H. R. White, D. R. Wright, K. I.

President: THE HON. W. G. FRY.

Chairman of Committees: THE HON. W. M. CAMPBELL.

PROVINCE

Templestowe Templestowe South Eastern Geelong Melbourne West Ballarat Doutta Galla Gippsland Northern Bendigo Waverley Chelsea East Yarra Gippsland Melbourne West Melbourne Melbourne North South Eastern Doutta Galla North Western

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: The Honorables A. K. Bradbury, D. G. Elliot, H. M. Hamilton V. T. Hauser, C. A. M. Hider, A. W. Knight, and H. R. Ward.

Leader of the Government: THE HON. V. O. DICKIE.

Deputy Leader of the Government: THE HON. A. J. HUNT.

Leader of the Opposition: THE HON. J. W. GALBALLY, Q.c.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: THE HON. J. M. WALTON.

Leader of the National Party: THE HON. S. R. McDoNALD.

Deputy Leader of the National Party: THE HON. B. P. DUNN.

.tmbtfl1 af t~t JJtgi111utittt Al1l1twbly

FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT-FIRST SESSION.

MEMBER DISTRICT

Amos, D. G. I. Morwell Austin, T. L. .. Ripon Balfour, J. C. M. Narracan Billing, N. A. W., K.SU. Springvale Birrell, H. W .. , Geelong West Borthwick, W. A. Monbulk Burgin, C. W. J. Polwarth Cain, John Bundoora Cathie, I. R. Carrum Coleman, C. G. Syndal Collins, P. C. Noble Park Cox, G. H. Mitcham Crabb, S. M. Knox CrelIin, M. L. Sandringham Culpin, J. A. Glenroy Dixon, B. J. St. Kilda Doube, V. J. Albert Park Dunstan, R. C., D.S.O... Dromana Ebery, W. T. . . Midlands Edmunds, C. T. Ascot Vale Evans, A. T. Ballarat North Evans, B. J. Gippsland East Fogarty, W. F... Sunshine Fordham, R. C. Footscray Francis, C. H., Q.c. Caulfield Ginifer, J. J. Keilor Gude, P. A. Geelong East Guy, A. G. Gisborne Hamer, R. J., E.D. Kew Hann, E. J. Rodney Hayes, G. P. Wantirna *Holding, A. C. Richmond Hudson, N. R., D.F.C. .. Werribee Jasper, K. S. Murray Valley Jennings, D. B... Westernport Jona, Walter Hawthorn *Jones, B. O. .. Melbourne Kennett, J. G. .. Burwood Kirkwood, C. W. D. Preston Lacy, Norman.. Warrandyte Lieberman, L. S. Benambra

• Resigned, November 3, 1977. t Elected, November 5, 1977. t Died, September, 10, 1977.

MEMBER

Lind, A. A. c. .. Loxton, S. J. E. McArthur, P. S. McCabe, J. E. .. McClure, D. H. R. Mclnnes, N. M. McKellar, D. K. Mackinnon, D. J. McLaren, I. F., O.B.E. " Macle]]an, R. R. C. Mutton, J. P. ., Patrick, Mrs. J. T. Plowman, S. J .. . Raiferty, 1. A .. . Ramsay, J. H .. . Reese, W. F. L. Richardson, J. I. Roper, T. W .. , Ross-Edwards, Peter Scanlan, A. H ... Simmonds, J. L. Simpson, J. H ... Skeggs, B. A. E. Smith, Aurel Smith, 1. W. Stephen, W. F. .. Stirling, G. F. .. Suggett, R. H. " Templeton, T. W. Thompson, L. H. S., C.M.G. tToner, Mrs. P. T. Trewin, T. C ... Trezise, N. B. .. tVale, R. M ... Weideman, G. G. Wheeler, Sir Kenneth Whiting, M. S ... Wilkes, F. N. .. Williams, M. T. Wilton, J. T. Wood, A. R ...

Speaker: THE HON. SIR KENNETH WHEELER.

Chairman of Committees: MR. I. F. McLAREN, O.B.E.

DISTRICT

Dandenong Prahran Ringwood Lowan Bendigo Gippsland South Portland Box Hill Bennettswood Berwick Coburg Brighton Evelyn Glenhuntly Balwyn Heatherton Forest Hill Brunswick Shepparton Oakleigh Reservoir Niddrie Ivanhoe South Barwon Warrnambool Ballarat South Williamstown Bentleigh Mentone Malvern Greensborough Benalla Geelong North Greensborough Frankston Essendon Mildura Northcote Doncaster Broadmeadows Swan Hill

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: Mr. Billing, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. A. T. Evans, Mr. B. J. Evans, Mr. Ginifer, Mr. Hann, Mr. Lind, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Reese, Mr. Aurel Smith, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Suggett, Mr. Templeton, and Mr. Trewin.

Leader of the Liberal Party and Premier: THE HON. R. J. HAMER, E.D.

Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and Deputy Premier : THE HON. L. H. S. THOMPSON, C.M.G.

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

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition: MR. R. C. FORDHAM.

Leader of the National Party: MR. PETER Ross-BDWARDS.

Deputy Leader of the National Party: MR. M. S. WHITING.

HEADS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS

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

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

Hansard-Chief Reporter: Mr. R. G. Stuart, B.O.

Library-Librarian: Miss J. McGovern.

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

Legislative Council [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Chamber. 9057

1Iltgilllntint C!rnUUtil. Tuesday, September 6, 1977.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry) took the chair at 4.52 p.m. and read the prayer.

DEATH OF MEMBER'S WIFE. The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G.

Fry): While the House was in abeyance we received the melancholy news of the death of Mrs. Galbally, the wife of the Leader of the Opposition. I inform honorable members that messages and suitable floral tributes were sent on behalf of all honorable members.

Mr. Galbally, on behalf of the House, I extend to you our deepest condolences.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CHAMBER.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): I am sure all honorable members would like me, before the session starts, to comment on the wonderful Chamber we are sitting in today. The work that was contemplated for this Chamber was delayed. Because of the amount of work involved, as all honorable members know, when the autumn sessional period concluded we moved out believing that the Public Works Department had access to the Chamber for the next four or five months. Honorable members will recall the need for Parliament to reassemble which meant that scaffolding had to be removed thus delaying the work for a week or so. I, and I am sure all honorable members, have watched the progress of the work in the Chamber.

One can talk idly today about how artisans in our work force are not as good as they were 100 years ago, but I am sure all honorable members will agree that the refurbishing of this Chamber has been done in such a way that it compares more than

Session 1977.-314

favourably with its appearance in 1856 wnen it first came into operation, and speaks volumes for the men who have chosen to be carpenters, plasterers, painters, electricians, and scaffolders.

I think it proper to record the names of those who participated in the magnificent restoration of this Chamber. The Clerk of the Parliaments has kindly made available to me, through the Public Works Department, a list of those artisans. It is as follows-S. Cook, Senior inspector of works A. L. Bird, Supervisor L. Varossy, Carpenter E. Redmond, Carpenter M. Mannion, Plasterer A. Jones, Plasterer W. Coghlan, Plasterer P. Griffin, Plasterer E. Duggan, Bricklayer P. Sullivan, Bricklayer M. Reynolds, Bricklayer A. Harrison, Builders labourer S. H. Bant, Supervisor F. L. Strahan, Supervisor E. Phillip, Painter D. Fletcher, Painter E. Crichton, Painter P. Buckley, Painter J. Watson, Painter J. Hendrey, Painter A. Buerkel, Painter P. Costanzo, Painter M. Tavlia, Painter M. Tavlian, Painter T. Jones, Apprentice painter Heather CulIen, Apprentice painter R. Knapp, Apprentice painter C. Patterson, Apprentice painter S. Griffiths, Apprentice painter K. Green, Apprentice painter T. E. Tinkler, Glazier B. Harrington, Glazier A. Pike, Glazier R. Dorey, Polisher A. A. Biggins, Supervisor, electrician P. Brabender, Leading hand electrician G. Lauder, Leading hand electrician T. Durmanic, Leading hand electrician C. Wi1liams, Leading hand electrician R. Joyce, Leading hand electrician H. Douramakos, Leading hand electrician M. McCarthy, Supervisor, scaffolding E. Haywood, Scaffolder K. Haywood, Scaffolder H. Martins, Scaffolder M. Leaman, Scaffolder J. McCarthy, Scaffold er R. PolIock, Scaffolder F. Gardam, Scaffolder F. Hoareau, Scaffolder P. ValIance, Scaffolder J. Rae, Scaffolder G. Pavlovic, Scaffolder

9058 Joint Sitting [COUNCIL.] of Parliament.

The work commenced on 12th May and was completed on 26th August. Some polishing remains to be completed, which will take another six to eight weeks. I -am sure that honorable members will agree that these persons have done a wonderful job.

JOINT SITIING OF PARLIAMENT. STATE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA: DEAKIN

UNIVERSITY: MONASH UNIVERSITY.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): I have received the following communications, dated 1 st September, 1977, from the Minister of Education-

Pursuant to the provisions of section 43 of the State College of Victoria Act 1972, a Proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the GOVernment Gazette on 13th July, 1977, fixed Mond-ay 14th November, 1977, as the day on whiCh the Senate of the State College of Victoria is to be duly constituted. In the meantime the State College has been administered by an Interim Senate, three members of whichthe Hon. H. R. Ward, M.L.C., the Hon. B. P. Dunn, M.L.C. and Mr. B. O. Jones, M.P.-were recommended for appointment by the Parliament under the provisions of section 45 of the Act.

Section 7 of the Act provides that three members of the Senate shall be Members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sitting of Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly conducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the Members at the sitting, and I should be grateful if you could arrange for a joint sitting to recommend three Members for appointment to the Senate for the four year term commencing on 14th November, 1977.

I have addressed a similar letter to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely, L. H. S. THOMPSON,

Minister of Education. Pursuant to the provisions of section 39

of the Deakin University Act 1974, a Proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette on 24th November, 1976, fixed Sunday, 1st January, 1978, as the day on which the Council of the University is to be duly constituted. In the meantime the University has been administered by an Interim Senate under the provisions of section 41 of the Act.

Section 7 of the Act provides that three members of the Council shall be Members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sitting Qf Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly conducted in

accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the Members at the sitting, and I should be grateful if you could arrange for a joint sitting to recommend three Members for apPOintment to the Council for the four year term commencing on 1st January, 1978.



Minister of Education. Section 7 of the Monash University Act

1958 provides that three members of the Council of the University shall be Members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sitting of Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly conducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the Members present at the Sitting.

The Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, M.L.C., who was appointed to the Council for the four-year tenn ending 11th December, 1979, has resigned from the Council on the advice of his doctor and I should be grateful if you could arrange a joint Sitting to recommend a Member to replace him.



Minister of Education.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): By leave, I move-

That this House meet the LefPslative Assembly for the purpose of sittmg and voting together to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Senate of the State College of Victoria, to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Deakin University and to choose a member of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University.

The motion was agreed to. It was ordered that a message be

sent to the Legislative Assembly acquainting them with the foregoing resolution and requesting them to name the place and tirae of such meeting.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE.

LITTER. The Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North

Eastern Province): Has the Chief Secretary, in travelling -around .the

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] without Notice. 9059

State, become aware of the wide variety and quantity of litter on roadsides, which is becoming particularly apparent with the good housekeeping of the Country Roads Board and the grass-cutting carried out by the various shire councils?

Does the Minister consider that the Litter Act 1964 is sufficient to control the littering of highways? If so, will the Government ensure that the Act is applied, and if not, will it alter the Act to make it more effective?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): The question should have been directed to me. The honorable member has probably read or heard of the Premier's announcement yesterday that amendments to the Litter Act will be proposed in this sessional period.

HOUSING COMMISSION LAND PURCHASES.

The Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU (Doutta Galla Province): Is the Minister for Local Government in a position to assure the House that he did not have discussions with Mr. Peter John Leake and/or Mr. Colin George Cooke of Nandina Investments in July, 1973, regarding the proposed Melton land purchases? Did the Minister have discussions with either gentleman two months prior to 29th March, 1974?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): On the same matter?

I am in a position to give the House an unqualified assurance on the first m'atter. As to the second matter, Mr. Landeryou has not specified the discussion on which he requested information. I think I should elaborate.

It is no secret that Mr. Peter Leake was chairman of the Flinders Federal electorate committee of the Liberal Party in 1973. I have never hidden the fact that before the 1973 elections in that capacity he approached me to ask whether he

could raise funds for me which, of course, chairmen of electoral committees do. He raised funds; I do not know the total amount. I do not know the identity of any donor, although I presume he was one, and I do not know the amount paid by any subscriber. That is in accordance with the code of ethics of the Liberal Party.

Because it is known that he raised funds, an imputation has been made that he must have received confidential information about the Melton land purchase by the Housing Commission.

The Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU: I asked you whether you discussed it.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT: No, I did not discuss it with him, and indeed the facts put paid completely to the imputation. In f1act Welmac and their associates had been engaged in putting together the parcel of land over a considerable period and the purchases went back to December, 1972, March, 1973, May and June, 1973, and in the final case September" 1973.

The Housing Commis,sion first obtained Cabinet approval to look for land in the Melton area on 16th July, 1973. On 17th September, 1973, it obtained approval to seek that land in the corridor west of Melton, an area of som'e 15 to 20 square mUes. I knew for the first time then the location of the land that the Housing Commission was prepared to buy. within 15 or 20 square miles. By that stage all this land had long since been aggregated. It can hardly be said to be on the basis of confidential knowledge if the land was held by the vendor before the commission decided to buy.

I might add that it is a matter of record, on which evidence will be given, that the Chief Secretary first disclosed to me the precise area of land which he had decided to buy on lOth January, 1974, at 'a conference at which a number of officers were present and which was fully minuted ..

9060 Questions [COUNCIL.] without Notice.

OUTBREAK OF SALMONELLA. The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN

(Western Province) : In view of the anxiety caused to young mothers who use powdered milk products following the recent outbreak of salmonella, can the Minister of Health give the House an assurance that steps are being taken to ensure that the chance of such an outbreak occurring in the future is minimized?

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON (Minister of Health): The outbreak to which the honorable member refers is no doubt the one at the Tongala milk factory in northern Victoria. It concerns the contamination of the product Lactogen which is used in the feeding of infants.

The Department of Health has closed that factory and has insisted that all the Lactogen products produced at that factory be withdrawn from sale.

There was a minor outbreak of gastroenteritis anslng from the presence of salmonella bacteria bred in tha,t - plant. The factory will remain closed until it has been thoroughly established that any future product will be free from contamination, that all the faults inherent in some of the repairs made to machinery for the drying of milk in that factory are corrected and the danger of contamination from that source no longer exists.

I can assure the honorable member that as far as possible the risk win be minimized but it is not possible to give an undertaking that in the future no further contamination by salmonella bacteria will happen. As Mr. Elliot knows, salmonella bacteria are present in hundreds of different varieties.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT: There are 805.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON: The bacteria present in poultry products are destroyed by cooking. I can recommend to all Victorians that they continue to cook their meat in the future as they have in the past. Work is already proceeding

on regulations to ensure that recalling procedures, standards of laboratories and standards of testing are all upgraded.


The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING (Melbourne Province): In respect of land purchases by the Housing Commission in Sunbury, what instructions or guidelines did the Minister for Local Government issue to the Valuer-General's Department to use in determining the value of the land at the time of the purchase? At the time of the purchase was the land zoned as general farming, and was any potential residential consideration taken into account in the valuation? If the Minister did not issue such an instruction or guidelines perhaps he could inform the House who did? In another case today the Minister of Housing and Minister for Planning--

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): Order!

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): I gave no instructions whatever to the ValuerGeneral or to any other person in respect of valuation of land at Sunbury, Melton or Pakenham and was not consulted about them in any way.

GOULBURN-MURRA Y IRRIGA nON DISTRICT.

The Hon. N. B. REID (Bendigo Province): Some time ago the Minister of Water Supply appointed Mr. A. G. Robinson to conduct an inquiry into the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. r believe the report has been completed, and I ask the Minister of Water Supply when copies of it will be available.

The Hon. F. J. GRANTER (Minister of Water Supply): The report has been finalized; the Government has received it and it will be made available to honorable members in the electorates of the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District and to any other honorable member who would like to peruse it. It will also be provided

Ministerial [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9061

to advisory boards in full, but individual members of advisory boards will receive a summary of the recommendations and conclusions.

DRAFT STATE DISASTER PLAN. The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (North

ern Province): In reply to a question during the last sessional period the Chief Secretary said that a draft State disaster plan was under consideration. Can the honorable gentleman advise the House whether this draft plan has been considered and when the final report and plan will be available?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The final planning is close to completion. The Chief Commissioner of Police is responsible for the State emergency services. Recently a new Chief Commissioner, Mr. Miller, was appointed. Mr. Miller has now apprised himself of the whole report it having not been his responsibility up to the time of the retirement of Chief Commissioner J ackson. I shall not give a date but I hope the draft plan will be finalized and circulated as quickly as possible.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. HOUSING COMMISSION POLICIES AND

LAND PURCHASES.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): I wish to make a Ministerial statement with respect to the Housing Commission.

By way of background, and for the benefit of the House to allow a full canvass of present policies, I wish to restate that the Government strongly supports the principle of home ownership by any Victorian family which can afford-or can be helped to purchase-a home of their own.

We do this for many excellent reasons, the most fundamentally important being the perceived right of every Australian family to own their piece of Australia. We believe that home ownership makes better citizens, allows low-income families to participate in the economic wealth of this country and consequently leads to over-all improvement in our

community's and the Australian way of life. The Victorian Liberal Government has pursued that belief-that policy-since 1955. With vigour! In so far as the Housing Commission is concerned, it has provided since its formation in 1938 in excess of 84,000 dwellings for Victorians-to the extent that one person in twelve is being helped with housing, through the commission-of which total, more than half, 44,511, have been purchased with Housing Commission help.

When the Honorable R. J. Hamer succeeded the Honorable Sir Henry Bolte as Premier of Victoria in August, 1972, he immediately announced a number of top priority policy matters. Decentralization was given the highest priority in these policy announcements. In broad terms, it meant that Government action was to be directed towards the development of country towns, with special emphasis being applied to at least a half dozen of the largest provincial centres. The highest priority was to be given to housing needs in all country towns and the operations of the Housing Commission were to be scaled down within Greater Melbourne and no further Housing Commission high-rise flats for family units were to be built.

It was recognized that the key to decentralization was with industrial development in country towns and the necessary housing to cater for the needs of families who were either prepared to remain in a country town or move there from the metropolitan area where new job opportunities were created. It was also recognized that, irrespective of how much Government assistance was forthcoming to decentralize, there would always be families who would prefer to live in the big city and there were industries which had no desire to move away from Melbourne.

Equally it was accepted that Melbourne would continue to be a magnet for many, and therefore a programme was devised whereby a number of satellite towns would be

9062 Ministerial [COUNCIL.] Statement.

developed by the Housing Commission, in conjunction with private developers, around the perimeter of Greater Melbourne, but at a distance from the perimeter which would permit people to commute within the hour to their place of work in Melbourne, and still give them all the benefits of living in a country environment. At least twelve towns, which were within one hour's travelling of Melbourne, were considered by the Government as being places for such development.

In the Melbourne Herald of 29th March, 1973, the Government intent was announced regarding the establishment of new towns, that twelve opportunities were being looked at. As Minister of Housing, I then said, inter alia-

We want to get people out of the concrete jungle of the big city.

We are determined that, from now onparticularly in the dormitory towns-commiSsion houses will not be Cl typed". Both in design and location, our houses will blend with the pattern of the town. The Government determined to buy large tracts of land, within reasonable commuting distance of Melbourne, as a deliberate policy to counter urban sprawl around Melbourne's periphery and to assist in developing new types of residential settlements, totally integrated. The reason for wishing to buy large tracts of land was to allow for implementing the Government's new policy of social mix-a policy allowing for Government housing to be integrated within a total residential complex, aesthetically indistinguishable from its neighbour, such that in these Government sponsored housing projects, no more than onethird of the housing stock created would be provided to people needing Government housing help. It was also designed as a positive intervention in the residential land market, to increase supplies of lots and dampen rapidly rising prices.

Of the twelve opportunities under review during 1973, the Government opted for three-Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton. The Government approved the seeking of land in these general areas in April, July and Sep-

The Hon. V. O. Dickie.

tember, 1973, and precise locations were, in each case, subsequently selected and purchases effected.

Land purchase for residential development in each of those three areas afforded the opportunity of creating new, integrated communities in the satellite town situation to which I have previously referredwith the prospect of ease of commuting to central Melbourne should that be necessary, access to growing local employment opportunities-the chance for Government to quite directly effect a balancing situation around Melbourne, yet in a way not connected to its then urban sprawl. Self-contained, moderate-sized communities with which new residents could develop and feel a rapport, yet in each case offering a diversity of life style suited to each.

That policy was welcomed and applauded in an Age editorial of 20th September, 1973, which stated-

Instead of attacking spiralling land prices with the imperfect weapon of price control, the Hamer Government has wisely preferred to use a blend of competition and compassion. Instead of running the risk of distorting the market, the Government has entered it in the interests of the "small man". Thus, unlike some of the Federal Labor Government's proposals, the Victorian Government's plan deserves high marks both for economic sense and social justice. Those three Housing Commission land purchases, so welcome then in principle and potential effect, have now been cast in doubt and three observations are pertinent-

Firstly, the Housing Commission was directed by the Government to buy parcels of land in these places, the Government having fully considered the potential of at least twelve country towns near Melbourne, and decided on the three mentioned, namely Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton.

Secondly, over the 22 years of suc-' cessful Liberal Government in Victoria, it has been firm policy not to compulsorily acquire land, other than as a last resort. Each of the three parcels of land purchased by the corn-' mission and now under scrutiny by a board of inquiry, was valued by the


Valuer-General. Subsequently, contracts of sale were negotiated with the owners of the land-in each case at a price less than that assessed by the Valuer-General.

Thirdly, 1973 and 1974 were land boom years-the land market was at its peak-and so the Housing Commission competed with the market that then obtained.

It is common knowledge now that a number of developers-many wellknown in the field, or formerly sohave since taken the knock. They bought at the peak and could not service their commitments. There is no need to mention names-they should all be well-known to honorable members. Yet nobody has suggested raking over the coals of the disasters within the private sector which followed the 1973 land boom. Nor has it been suggested that land purchasing arrangements by other Governments, at that time, should now be viewed in retrospect.

I could cite a most interesting comparative example for the information of all honorable members and I hope all honorable members are listening. It concerns land purchased by the Commonwealth Defence Service Homes in the Parish of Yuroke, near Craigieburn. Some 326 acres were sold in August, 1972, to a developer, by the original owners, for $187,000. Several subsequent sales and transfers took place between August, 1972, and August, 1974-each one at a considerable profit. On 30th August, 1974, the land was again sold to a developer for $908,750 and on the same day-I emphasize" the same day "-it was transferred to the Commonwealth Defence Service Homes for $1 ·485 million. In two years there was a capital appreciation of almost 700 per cent. And, a "same day" payment by the then Federal Government showing a 24-hour gain of 63 per cent to a one-day vendor.

It is ironic that at the very same time, the then Federal Minister for Housing, who was responsible for this remarkable land purchase, queried the Housing Commission land purchases

at Sunbury and Melton. Maybe honorable members opposite should look in detail into this and other Federal Government purchases made during that 1973-74 period. Their findings could be very interesting!

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province): On a pOint of order, Mr. President, while I appreciate that the Leader of the House is reading with a slow measured tread, so to speak, I think he insults the House. We were just as interested in what the Minister said before as what he is saying now and what he will say subsequently. I request that the Minister continue at that speed so honorable members can understand what he is saying. What the honorable gentleman has said to this stage has been almost unintelligible.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): There is no point of order, Mr. Elliot has made his point.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province): Before the Minister resumes reading, it seems tha t this is not a Ministerial sta tement. For instance, the Minister is saying, "It is ironic". He is debating a point which he proposes to put, no doubt to the electors, and no doubt to Sir Gregory Gowans. I have argued this with you, Mr. President, without much success over the years, but it seems that a Ministerial statement should be a statement and not a process of the Minister arguing in his own interest.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): Mr. Galbally has made that statement and it is left to the Minister's good taste and good sense to take note of what has been said. I do not propose to rule on this point.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary) : It is important to bring forward comparative sales. Incidentally, the Craigieburn defence service homes land is still undeveloped and, I believe, about to be placed on the market for sale as broad acres; as it was, in 1972. The Housing Commission is now under fire-and not for the first time-in respect of these three land purchases.


The Government, to dispel any doubts whatsoever and to put to rest various allegations and inuendoes for once and for all, has appointed a board of inquiry for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon-

1. All aspects of and matters arising from the land purchases by the Housing Commission at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton in the years 1973 and 1974, and the proposed development of the land so purchased, and in particular to report in each case-- .

(a) whether any person was guilty of any impropriety, breach of law or duty, negligence or act of dishonesty in relation thereto;

(b) whether any person gave or gained improper advantage or improperly disclosed or misused confidential information;

(c) whether the valuation, or valuations, preceding the purchase was, or were, properly made and based;

(d) whether the price paid was fair and reasonable.

2. Whether the procedures and methods employed and the practices observed in relation to the purchase of land by the Housing Commission are adequate or whether any and what new procedures, methods and practices should be introduced and adopted in relation thereto.

The Government has asked the board, with as little delay as possible, and by 30th November at the latest, to report its opinion resulting from this inquiry. Why November 30th? To provide a full opportunity for debate in this Parliament during the course of the current session. That is our purpose-to seek a full and frank report, available for public scrutiny and for public debate here, in this Parliament, this session.

The board is at work at present and it would be unfair, in the Government's opinion, to canvass in detail, now, matters referred to in the terms of reference. A number of persons


are due to appear before the board and it is the board's task to report its opinion. I certainly would not wish to see particular people, or particular circumstances, pre-judged here, under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, during the currency of the board's inquiry. I am sure all honorable members will agree that to do so would be totally unfair to those concerned in the inquiry-and inappropriate too, with an appointed board of inquiry now taking· evidence.

The Government has indicated its intent to debate the matter here, in this session, when all the relevant facts are brought to attention.

The relevant facts will include prices paid for the three parcels of land referred to at that time and will also refer to development proposals in train. I should mention, as a matter of record, that following a firm submission to the commission by Pinmore Pty. Ltd. in December, 1976 -a submission which allowed for marshalling private capital to help achieve the Government's purpose~ formal advertisements were then placed nationally, in the month of February, inviting like-minded groups to register interest in joining the commission in various joint venture opportunities. Fifty-four such submissions have been received, interviews have been conducted, and as a result a short list of registrants thought to be appropriate has been compiled. They are-or were-due to be contacted and asked to competi ti'Vely bid for various housing projects throughout the State. The Government thinks it best not to proceed with these competitive tenders until such time as the board has reported, for to do so now could quite inappropriately anticipate one of the terms of reference given the board.

The principle, however, has already been stated. Coincidentally with the advertisements being placed last February, a press statement was issued by me announcing that the commission was anxious to develop closer relationships with private builders in the future provision of


low-income State housing. Honorable members interested in this topic will no doubt have a copy of that statement which is self-explanatory.

In furtherance to that policy, the Minister of Housing intends introducing legislation into this session of Parliament to provide to the Housing Commission the necessary legislative authority to enter into joint ventures with private enterprise firms to allow for their competitive participation in the commission's larger residential developments.

Perhaps I could give the House one example whereby private capital and expertise is being marshalled to assist in the provision of housing in a decentralized area. We-the community-want to see the new Loy Yang power station built. That will require the provision of housing for the work force employed on the project and recently the Decentralized Industry Housing Authority, acting in conjunction with the State Electricity Commission, the Housing Commission and the Treasury, placed advertisements calling for builders to register interest to supply between 300 and 1,000 houses throughout the Latrobe Valley over the next ten years. Builders will use land already owned by the State Electricity Commission, or by the Housing Commission, or land which they themselves already own, and will supply houses on a competitive tender basis, as is justified by the work force requirements at the power station project. For its part the Government will guarantee to purchase any houses unsold, following a suitable period of time, through one of its various agencies.

In other words, the private builder does not need to get involved with the capital cost of land, nor perhaps with bridging finance associated with servicing costs, yet has a guaranteed uItim'a te purchaser-one or other agency of the Government. The risks associated with developing new residential areas are minimized; borrowing facilities for the builders concerned must surely be easier under the circumstances which I

have described, and therefore the end cost of the residential projects must be lower than usual. Is not this type of arrangement beneficial to all parties? To the Government for its housing needs in association with an immense project-for the builder in terms of minimizing costs of finance and therefore for the end-customer in terms of his "end buying" price?

The utilization of private or institutional capital to help develop mixed es·tates on Government owned land-and the resultant reduction of Government financial outlay-must have significant advantages, not only for the Government but also for the community of Victoria.

Joint venture objectives are to be pursued by the Government because there is-there always has been-a shortage of resources to be allocated amongst competing uses in Victoria. There never has been enough money to provide adequately for housing demand. When the Housing Commission is in a position to joint venture with private firms a new opportunity to tap fresh sources of capital will eventuate. This will attract, the Government trusts, a very significant increase in the level of funds used in the production of housing generally, and low-income houses for those waiting for Government assistance. The Government is most anxious to use every possible means to encourage the building of more houses and to effect shorter waiting periods for needy families.

The community generally will benefit, because the Iow-income housing content will be spread unobtrusively through the normal private developments. No longer will low-income housing" stick out like a sore thumb", because it will be designed into new housing areas. It will be indistinguishable from any other housing development in the community.

Low-income families assisted in this way will benefit in particular. They will receive a high standard of accommodation, occupying premises


in total~ planned and developed communIties, which will not have the label of low-income Government housing attached to them; they will be indistinguishable from their neighbours.

This then leads to recent criticism as to the extent of land holding owned by the Housing Commission throughout Victoria. This criticism appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that all land owned by the commission is to be used to provide low-income Government housing. As I have just explained, this is not the case.

When one considers that of the land presently owned only ,about onethird, in the main, will be used for low-income Government housing production, the extent of the present land holdings falls into a new perspective.

In provincial and country areas the commission is never criticized for owning too much land. The pressure is always on, from local interests, from local members, trying to get the commission to purchase more land holdings and, in fact, the commission is usually requested to purchase sufficient land to ensure a minimum of ten to fifteen years' activity.

I wonder what the Opposition criticism would have been had the commission not owned significant tracts of land around Melbourne to allow for mixed housing development to occur, to help overcome the disproportionate waiting time now experienced by those wishing to live and work in and around the metropoIiswhether criticism is appropriate to land holdings in country and provincial areas? Had the commission not sought land banks throughout Victoria, ! would have thought that the commission could reasonably be subject to more justifiable criticism in those circumstances than it can be at present. It is not possible to build houses without land to erect them on. It is obviously prudent for the largest producer of housing in Victoria to ensure that it has adequate land for its future operations.


Bearing in mind the Government's firm commitment to a policy of social mix in most future developments of sizeable proportion and the disposal of two-thirds of most new developments to achieve this purpose, the commission's present land holdings are certainly not excessive. As· a general guide, the intention would normally be to maintain land stock at about the present level, by purchasing further areas of land to replace annual usage. This year, however, because of the awesome predicament which the home building industry faces, the commission has been asked to minimize its land stock replenishment programme-to use every possible dollar in the Budget to provide bricks and mortar; gainful employment for an industry in trouble -affordable houses for people who need shelter.

Recent significant land purchases, in such decentralized centres as Sale, Wodonga, Ballarat, Kyneton, Mildura and Bacchus Marsh ensure adequate medium-term land in most regional centres, to accommodate the dual policies of decentralization and social mix. However, land purchase problems now being encountered in the important centres of Geelong and Bendigo must be overcome, and the Government is directing activity towards this end.

Still dealing in bricks and mortar -building work, but not houses as such-there are two other matters that should be taken into account so far as Government policies affecting the Housing Commission's activities go. It has long been recognized by the Government that new communities created by the Housing Commission and other large developers go through an initial, difficult period when community facilities are inadequate.

In an endeavour to at least partially overcome such problems in low-income housing areas, the commission is to make available from now on sufficient funds to provide primary schools and pre-schools in commission developments, where provision of these facilities would otherwise lag


significantly behind the settlement of families. Arrangements have already been made for the provision of preschools at Whittington, COrio, Werribee and Hastings. Primary schools are at present being planned for Broadmeadows-three schools-and one each at Werribee and Shepparton.

Subject to the availability of funds, this programme will be continued and, if possible, extended in the futureall funds to be repayable to the commission by the respective authorities, when work has been completed, over a three-year period.

The Urban Land Council was formed in 1975, utilizing the Housing Commission as the instrument through which land would be purchased, subdivided, developed and sold. Significant purchases have been made and development proceeded with. The sale of residential land, at reasonable prices, is a matter of public record. Continued activity in this area in the future will have the desired effects of helping to ensure an adequate supply of high quality residential land, at reasonable prices, in areas to the north-west of Melbourne -achieving, in part, the balanced development of the metropolis which the Government has previously spelled out as being desirable.

Land stocks at present total some 429 lots under development and 205 lots available for sale plus 460 broad hectares. The revenue from sale of land is to be used as a revolving fund to finance continuing activity of the council. The anticipated expenditure for the 10977 -78 financial year will be in the order of $9 million of which 75 per cent will accrue from sales and the balance will be allocated to the State by the Commonwealth under the original agreement.

In summary, the commission continues to do an outstanding job throughout Victoria in providing low income families with high quality housing, at prices they can afford to pay.

As at 30th June, 1977, the commission had 2,357 units of accom .. modation in course of erection. It is

expected that work will be commenced on another 2,473 during the 1977-78 financial period. It is estimated that between 2,500 and 3,000 of these new units will be completed and occupied during the year.

This represents a substantial contribution towards the Government's effort to provide decent housing for every Victorian family, at prices they can afford to pay.

Of the 2,473 new units on which construction will commence this year, 443 will be units to house elderly persons, 1,751 will be houses for families to rent and buy, and 279 will be flats erected in medium density developments.

Some 60 per cent of these new units in 1977-78-a total of 1,455 units-will be erected in regional and country centres. Only 39·95 per cent of the new works programme-a total of 988 units-will be located in the metropolitan area.

Because inflation has hit Government fund allocations, it will be necessary to induce greater participation by private enterprise to supplement short Government finance.

The Minister of Housing has, as previously stated, already commenced action to have private enterprise provide an initial 300 homes, of an eventual need of about 1,000, for the Loy Yang project. He expects to announce successful tenderers for this project and the methods to be employed before the end of October, 1977.

Further action of a more general nature will ensue when the Housing Commission has the authority of this House to do so.

The Housing Commission over many years has held a proud place in Victoria-its contribution in both a physical and social sense should not be allowed to be swept under any carpet. Without its presence, I just wonder how viable many of our country towns would be, how satisfactorily people in need might otherwise be accommodated, and in the present climate how on earth the

9068 Board of Inquiry [COUNCIL.] into Housing Commission

building trade, particularly smaller country builders and those sub-trades that work with them, would have any hope of survival. By leave, I move-

That this House take note of this Ministerial statement relating to Housing Commission land transactions. I propose to hear honorable members and use the right of reply under Standing Order No. 123.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne N orth Province): I move-

That the Ministerial statement be taken into account on the next day of meeting.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): That is equivalent to refusing leave to take the statement into account.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY: No, we wish to debate the statement on the next day of meeting.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): Then I give notice that on the next day of meeting I shall move that this House take note of the Ministerial statement relating to Housing Commission land transactions.

BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO HOUSING COMMISSION LAND

PURCHASES.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province): By leave, I move--

That leave be given to members of the Legislative Council to attend as witnesses if they think fit before the board of inquiry to investigate land purchases by the Housing Commission of Victoria in 1973 and 1974 appointed by the State Executive Council on 9th August, 1977.

It seems desirable that members of this House, if they so wish, should be free of the restraint of Parliamentary privilege and be enabled to give evidence. Many years ago this matter was dealt with at some length by Mr. Justice Anderson, who was then Mr. Kevin Anderson, Q.C., during the inquiry into scientology. I have some tender memories of that inquiry, because I wished to give evidence before the commission but was prevented from doing so because this House had

not passed an enabling motion like the one I am suggesting to the House tonight. The proposal, if accepted, would impose no compulsion to give evidence but would provide the opportunity to do so if any member wished to be heard.

I regret that a motion of this kind is necessary. It seems to me--and I am supported in this particularly by what the Leader of the House said tonight-that Housing Commission policy, as dictated or advised by the Government, is a matter peculiarly for Parliament, and this is where the matter ought to be resolved. At present we are betwixt heaven and earth. The Minister has outlined the policy of the Housing Commission in Parliament, and at the same time a board of inquiry is inquiring into the matter.

The decline of Parliamentary institutions, both here and at Canberra, has been hastened by the determined policy of Government in Canberra and in Victoria to fob off to someone else outside Parliament a problem that belongs peculiarly to the Parliamentary institution.

The Housing Commission is a State instrumentality which is funded with moneys, and has considerable resources. Parliament should be the watchdog. Parliament should assert its control over the Executive arm of government, and that has not been done for many years.

It is a matter of deep regret for Parliamentary institutions that in the past twenty years one has seen almost the decline and fall of Parliamentary government in Victoria. This question and the issues surrounding it ought to have been resolved by Parliament by means of a Select Committee, of which there have been only two in the past 30 years. These are all-party committees. The two Select Committees that I mentioned -one on the Royal Botanic Gardens and one on the Little Desert-received encomiums from both the Government and the people. The continuing process of shovelling decisions off to some retired judge or eminent barrister is to be deplored.

Land [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Purchases. 9069

People in the community ask why members of Parliament are elected. In saying this, I make no improper attack on Sir Gregory Gowans. We all remember him as a fine and learned judge, but this process has been used by Governments here for many years. Members of Parliament are left with nothing to do while issues of this kind are debated in the press by every citizen in the land, as they should be. However, in the Parliament of Victoria we are told that these decisions will be made not in Parliament but by the resources of the commissioner of inquiry.

The Hon. R. J. LONG: Does Mr. Galbally disagree with the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Wilkes, in his call for an inquiry?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY: I have said that inquiries have almost broken Parliament and Parliamentary government in Victoria. Here members assemble after two or three months to discuss a matter that has been engaging the attention of the press daily.

No one will deny that big issues are involved, and I am not attempting to resolve them tonight, but it is preposterous that after a recess of three months, when honorable members return to Parliament, they are told that the matter is to be taken out of the Parliamentary arena so that members' mouths will be stopped until at some time, on the terms selected by the Government, a report is presented to the House.

I bitterly resent that because it denigrates the role of every member of this House.

The Hon. R. J. LONG: Does Mr. Galbally disagree with Mr. Wilkes?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y: I disagree with everyone who says that this matter should be taken out of the Parliamentary arena. We should tomorrow set up a Select Committee and abandon the other process, which is unparliamentary, undemocratic and not worthy of the role of a member of Parliament of this State.

Accordingly, I ask the House to carry the motion I have launched. If Parliamentary government is to survive in Australia, Parliament must present itself as a forum to the people and not as a ritual in which members come here a few times a week from now until Christmas, knowing that the decisions they ought to be making in the public interest are made for them by other people, no matter how knowledgeable, how experienced and how trustworthy they may be.

lt cannot be said that the proposals of a Parliamentary Select Committee would be hampered because there would be so many members of the National Party, so many members of the Government party and so many members of the Opposition. How does the Statute Law Revision Committee work? It works splendidly, and that committee operates on the same pattern I would propose for a Select Committee.

These are dark days for the people of Victoria. We are in the midst of a recession that is troubling not only Victoria and Australia but the whole world, and it is proper that members of Parliament accept their duties and responsibilities, no matter how onerous they may be. The community will get nowhere by handing its problems over to non-elected members of the community.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The Government fully supports the proposal outlined in Mr. Galbally's motion.

The motion was agreed to.

PROPERTY LAW (DEEDS) BILL. The Hon. HADDON STOREY

(Attorney-General), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make certain provision in relation to the registration and sealing of deeds, conveyances and other instruments, to alter provision for prescribing fees under the Property Law Act 1958, to amend the Property Law Act 1958 and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was brought in and read

a first time.

9070 Commissioners and [COUNCIL.] Justices Bill.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF

WORKS (POWERS) BILL. The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister

for Local Government), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to certain powers of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was brought in and read a

first time.

COMMISSIONERS AND JUSTICES BILL.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Evidence Act 1958 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1971 with respect to the fees payable by commissioners for taking declarations and affidavits and justices of the peace and their registra tion.


first time.

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Administration and Probate Act 1958 and for other purposes.


first time.

WILLS (INTERESTED WITNESSES) BILL.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re-enact sections 13 and 16 of the Wil1s Act 1958 to make provision in the Administration and Probate Act 1958 with respect to the power of the Supreme Court to declare wills to have been duly executed and for other purposes.


first time.

CRIMES (ARMED ROBBERY) BILL. The Hon. HADDON STOREY

(Attorney-General), by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Crimes Act 1958, to make provision for an offence of armed robbery and for other purposes.


first time.

COMMAND PAPERS. The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON

(Minister of Health) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, the report of the Youth Parole Board for the year 1975-76.

It was ordered that the report be laid on the table.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, the report of the judges of the Supreme Court for the year 1976.


PAPERS. The following papers, pursuant to

the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid on the table by the Clerk-Cemeteries Act 1958-Certificate of the Min

ister of Health relating to the purchase or taking of certain land for the purpose of the Traralgon Public Cemetery.

Country Fire Authority-Report for the year 1975-76.

Crimes Compensation Tribunal-Report for the year 1976-77.

Education Act 1955-Resumption of land at Corio North and Riddells Creek-Certificates of the Minister of Education (two papers).

Exhibition Trustees-Report for the year 1976-77.

Fire Brigades-Report of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board for the year 1975-76.

Geelong Harbor Trust CommissionersStatement of accounts for the year 1976.

Groundwater-Report on the investigation programme for the year 1975.

Land Conservation Council-Report for the year 1976-77.

La Trobe University-Report of the Council, together with Statutes approved by the Governor in Council, for the year 1976 (nine papers).

Papers. [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Papers. 9071

Law Reform Commissioner-Report for the year 1976-77.

Marketing of Primary Produots Act 1958-Proclamation declaring that Chicory shall

become the property of the Chicory Marketing Board for the period 20th June, 1977 to 19th June, 1978.

Proclamation declaring that Eggs shall become the property of ,the Victorian Egg Marketing Board for a further period of two years.

Melbourne University-Financial statements for the year 1975.

Parliamentary Officers Act 1975-Statements of appointments and alter

ations of classifications in the Departments of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly, the Library, the Reporting Staff of the Victorian Parliamentary Debates, and the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly House Committee, for the year 1976-77 (five papers).

Statements of persons temporarily employed in the Departments of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly, the Library, the Reporting Staff of the Victorian Parliamentary Debates, and the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly House Committee, for the year 1976-77 (five papers).

Parole Boards-Reports of the Adult Parole Boards for the years 1973-74 to 1975-76 (three papers).

Police Service Board-Determinations Nos. 273 to 277 (five papers).

Poultry Farmer LicenSing CommitteeReport for the year ended 28th February, 1977.

Railways Board-Report for the quarter ended 31st March, 1977.

Registration of Births Death and Marriages Act 1959-General abstract of live births, still births, deaths and marriages in Victoria for the year 1976.

River Murray Commission-Report for the year 1976.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament-Agricultural Education Cadetships Act

1959-No. 94. Bail Act 1977-No. 180. Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act 1970-

Nos. 215, 217 and 218. Building Societies Act 1976--No. 145. Cemeteries Act 1958-No. 167. Children's Court Act 1973-No. 157. Consumer Affairs Act 1972-No. 85. Country Fire Authority Act 1958-Nos.

115 and 196. County Court Act 1958-No. 112. Crown Proceedings Act 1958-No. 155. Dentists Act 1972-No. 166.

Dietitians Registration Act 1958-No. 216. Dried Fruits Act 1958-No. 129. Explosives Act 1960-No. 156. Fisheries Act 1965-Nos. 84, and 130 to

133. Forests Act 1958-No. 116. Friendly Societies Act 1958-No. 214. Grain Elevators Act 1958-Nos. 125 to

128, 138, 139 and 182. Health Act 1958-Nos. 96, 101, 136, 164,

165, 168 to 174, 177, 178, 185 202 and 225.

Housing Act 1958-No. 88. Industrial Training Act 1975-Nos. 86,

122, 142, 151, 159 to 163, and 184. Labour and Industry Act 1958-No. 100. Land Surveyors Act 1958-No. 197. Legal Profession Practice Act 1958-No.

224. Lifts and Cranes Act 1967-Nos. 87, 144,

219 and 220. Liquor Control Act 1968-Nos. 152 and

209. Local Government Act 1958-No. 176; Lotteries Gaming and Betting Act 1966-

Nos. 175 and 201. Magistrates' Courts Act 1971, Magistrates

(Summary Proceedings) Act 1975, Landlord and Tenant Act 1958-No. 181.

Magistrates (Summary Proceedings) .Act 1975-No. 158.

Marine Act 1958-Nos. 105, Ill, 118 to 120, 205 to 207, and 226 to 231.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958-Nos. 99, 146, 147 and 203.

Melbourne Harbor Trust Act 1958-No. 104.

Mental Health Act 1959-No. 108, 179, 183, 186 and 187.

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Superannuation Act 1976-Nos. 93, 97, 124 and 193.

Milk Board Act 1958-No. 109. Motor Car Act 1955-Nos. 102, 117 and

134. Pipelines Act 1967-No. 199. Poisons Act 1962-Nos. 135 and 200. Police Offences Act 1958-No. 208. Police Regulation Act 1958-Nos. 140 and

194. Portland Harbor Trust Act 1958-No. 143. Private Agents Act 1966--Nos. 190 and

232. Protection of Animals Act 1966--No. 212. Public Records Act 1973-No. 211. Public Service Act 1974-Nos. 90 to 92,

103, 107, 110, 148, 154, 204, 233 and 234; PSD Nos. 38 to 84.

Racing Act 1958-No. 98.

9072 Papers. [COUNCIL.] Papers.

Registration of Births Deaths and Marriages Act 1959-No. 210.

Road Traffic Act 1958-No. 121. Rural Finance and Settlement Commis

sion Act 1961-No. 223. Scaffolding Act 1971-Nos. 221 and 222. Second-hand Dealers Act 1958-Nos. 113,

114, 191 and 192. Seeds Act 1971-No. 150. Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973-No. 89. State Electricity Commission Act 1958-

No. 198. Supreme Court Act 1958, Companies Act

1961-No. 106. Teaching Service Act 1958-No. 195. Town and Country Planning Act 1961-

Nos. 188 and 189. Transport Regulation Act 1958-No. 137. Valuation of Land Act 1960-Nos. 123

and 153. Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act 1958-

No. 149. Water Act 1958-Nos. 141 and 213. Wild Flowers and Native Plants Protec

tion Act 1958-No. 95. State College of Victoria-Statements ot

accounts of constituent colleges, together with Statute approved by the Governor in Council, for the year 1975 (three

papers). Town and Country Planning Act 1961-

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966-Amendments No. "A"; No. 1 (Shire of Buninyong); No. 15, 1975 (City of Ballaarat); No. 4, 1976 (Shire of Buninyong), No. 6, 1976 (Shire of Ballarat); Nos. 23, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 31, 1976 (City of Ballaarat); and No. 7, 1977 (Borough of Sebastopol) (twelve papers).

Borough of Port Fairy Planning Scheme 1959-Metric Conversion Amendment 1975.

City of Benalla Planning Scheme-Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 16 (three papers).

City of Bendigo Planning Scheme 1962-Amendment No. 25.

City of Croydon Planning Scheme 1961-Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 (two papers).

City of Echuca Planning Scheme-Amendments No. 24, 1974 and No. 29, 1976 (two papers).

City of Fran,kston Planning SchemeAmendments Nos. 12 and 13 (two papers).

City of Horsham Planning Scheme 1973 -Amendments No. 30, 1976 and No. 32 (two papers).

City of Knox Planning Scheme 1965-Amendments Nos. 162 to 164, 169, 170, 172 and 174, 1976 (seven papers).

City of Sale Planning Scheme, with maps (two papers).

Cranbourne Planning Scheme 1960-Amendments No. 13, 1975, No. 21, 1976 and No. 26 (three papers).

Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme 1959 (Shire of Mansfield)-Amendment No. 22, 1976.

Eppalock Planning Scheme-Amendment "Au.

Lome Planning Scheme, with maps (three papers).

Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme -Amendments No. 56, Part 2A, with twelve maps; No. 62, Part 4, with three maps; No. 68, Part 1, with forty-five maps; No. 70, Part 2, with map; No. 74, with map; and No. 78, with map (sixtynine papers) .

Morwell Planning Scheme-Amendment No. 50, Part 1, 1975.

Phillip Island Planning Scheme-Amendments Nos. Is and le (two papers).

Port Fairy Planning Scheme 1959-Amendment No. 3, 1976.

Portland Planning Scheme 1957-Amendment No. 18, 1976-Part 2.

Seymour Planning Scheme-Amendments Nos. 18 and 28 (two papers).

Shire of Alberton (Coastal) Planning Scheme-Amendment No. 11, 1976-Part 1.

Shire of Arapiles (Horsham Boundary) Planning Scheme-Amendment No. 2.

Shire of Bacchus Marsh Planning Scheme -Amendments No. 6, Part 1, and No. 8 (two papers).

Shire of Bulla Planning Scheme 1959-Amendment No. 58, 1977.

Shire of Cranboume Planning Scheme 1960-Amendment No. 24.

Shire of Flinders Planning Scheme 1962 -Amendments Nos. 86 and 88, 1967 (two papers).

Shire of Kilmore Planning SchemeAmendments No. 8, 1976 and No. 23 (two papers).

Shire of Korumburra Planning Scheme, with maps (two papers).

Shire of Lillydale Planning Scheme 1958 -Amendment No. 70, 1976.

Shire of Mornington Planning Scheme 1959-Amendments No. SO, 1972 and No. 107, 1976 (two papers).

Shire of Portland (Heywood Township) Planning Scheme, with maps (two papers).

Shire of Rochester (Township) Planning Scheme-Amendment No. 6.

Shire of Rosedale Planning SchemeAmendments No. 3, Part 1; No. 4, 1976 and No. 5 (three papers).

Adjournment. [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Adjournment. 9073

Shire of Sherbrooke Planning Scheme 1965-Amendments No. 85, 1975 and No. 104, with maps (three papers).

Shire of Tambo Planning Scheme (Lakes Entrance) Planning Scheme-Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 (two papers).

Shire of Werribee Planning Scheme 1963 -Amendment No. 43, 1976.

Shire of Woorayl Planning SchemeAmendments No. 22, 1975 and No. 27 (two papers).

Town of Bairnsdale Planning Scheme, with map (two papers).

Town of Kyabram Planning SchemeAmendment No. 18.

Town of StawelI Planning Scheme 1963-Amendment No. 11, 1975.

Wangaratta Sub-Regional Planning Scheme, with maps (thirteen papers).

ADJOURNMENT. TELEVISING OF VICTORIAN FOOTBALL

LEAGUE GRAND FINAL-STOCK AFFECTED BY RAIL WAY STRIKEALBURY - WODONGA GROWTH CENTRE - HAMILTON-NORADJUIHA RAILWAY LINE-HEALTH SERVICES -COUNTRY TELEPHONE CHARGES.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): By leave, I move-

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn unti} tomorrow at quarter-past two o'clock.

The motion was agreed to. The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief

Secretary): I move-That the House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Thomastown Province): Once again at this time of the year I draw a matter to the attention of the Chief Secretary and ask him to refer it to the Premier. I refer to the televising of the Victorian Football League grand final. Over the years questions have been asked about this topic. In 1973 in another place questions were asked by Mr. Wilton, Mr. Skeggs and Mr. Wilkes. Again in 1974 questions were asked in another place by Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Holding, and by me in this House. Last October I raised this matter following the last grand final and at this late stage I seek the support of the Government to ensure that this year's grand final is televised. There is no reason why it should not be televised. The Victorian Football League comprising the

president, the general manager and the directors-the twelve disciplesseems to be running sport within this State. It is about time the Government did something about this and I ask the Chief Secretary to refer the matter to the Premier and Cabinet as I do not believe we should be dictated to by a minority body.

The Victorian Football Association is televising its games and over the past four years attendances at these games have increased. Attendances at Victorian Football League games have decreased and I suggest to the Chief Secretary that he refer that fact to the Premier in seeking his support to approach the directors of the Victorian Football League and once again inform them that the public of Victoria, including patients in hospitals, those unable to obtain tickets for the grand final and the many thousands who support the game during the year, should have the opportunity of watching the grand final on television.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): Order! I have been very tolerant in waiting for Mr. Eddy to come to the point, and I now suggest that he do so as quickly as possible. The honorable member has covered the matter three times already. I ask him to make his point and conclude.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY: I want the Chief Secretary to refer the matter to the Premier for action to be taken.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary) : Once again I will refer the matter raised by Mr. Eddy to the Premier.

The Hon. K. I. WRIGHT (North Western Province): I raise a matter with the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, who represents the M-inister of Transport in this House. It concerns constituents of mine who loaded sheep into railway wagons yesterday on the Underbool .... Murrayville-Ouyen line. No sooner had they loaded hundreds of sheep than they were instructed by the railway staff to unload them because of an impending strike.

9074 Adjournment. [COUNCIL.] Adjournment.

They refused to unload the sheep and, so far as I know, they may still be in the wagons.

I am wondering what action the Government can take to give due notice to. the farmers when one of these strikes is taking place so that a great loss will not be incurred. In this instance I under,stand that the loss could be as high as $4 a head and farmers are threatening to use road transport from now on. I should like to know what action the Government is taking.

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER ('Minister for State Development and Decentralization) : I agree with Mr. Wright that this matter is of real concern to users of the raiIways--or any other Government service for that m'atter-particularly when st'Ock owners are not only embarrassed but also penalized quite unfairly and unjustly by a set of circumstances over which they have no control.

I will certainly bring this matter to the notice of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I do n'Ot know whether he is aware of this particular consequence of this irresponsible strike, but I assure Mr. Wright that he soon will be.

I do not know how the Government or the Railways Board can give some warning so that the users of rail services will not be caught in this predicament in future. However, I agree with Mr. Wright that every effort should be made to 'advise prospective users of rail services that a strike is imminent once the management of the Victorian Railways is aware of it. I remind the House again that this is another consequence of an increasingly irresponsible industrial situation.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne N orth Province): I direct the attention of the Minister for State Development 'and Decentralization to the concern of many thousands of business and working people who placed their faith and trust in the Federal and State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria in respect of the Albury-Wodonga growth

centre. As the Federal Government has now withdrawn a large amount of the money which would have been m'ade available to this centre, is the State Government prepared to increase its allooation in order to make this a viable proposition?

It 'seems incongruous to me that we are prepared to spend $200 million in this city on the West Gate Bridge in order to bring more traffic, business and population into the middle of the city area, but up to date the three Governments have been prepared to spend only half of that amount in developing the twin cities of Albury and Wodonga. I should like to hear from the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, a clear statement on the Government's intentions concerning this growth complex.

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER (Minister for State Development and Decentralization): Firstly, I am sure that Mr. Walton recalls the broad facets of the agreement. The opemtive Act is the Albury-Wodonga Agreement Act 1973 passed by this P.arliament in December of that year. Clause 9 (8) of the agreement-I am speaking from memory but I think it is correct -clearly implies an obligation on the Federal Government to provide the necessary funds for the purchase of land and the development of the growth centre. It is also clearly stated in the Act and in the agreement, and validated by the so-called side letters which passed at that time between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria, that the States of New South Wales and Victoria as the recipient States of this loan funding would ultimately be responsible for the repayment of those loan moneys.

It is a matter of record that on the Victorian side some $39 million has been spent on the acquisition of land. The total borrowings exceed $50 million. In addition-this is based on the letter and spirit of the Act and the agreement-the Victorian Government has accelerated its input beyond the norm in terms of funding


the municipality principally concerned, namely, the Rural City of Wodonga, to help in the provision of services and the development of an infrastructure in an endeavour to keep pace with the accelerated growth that has been produced.

So that in this regard-this includes the extension of the gas pipeline-some $30 million to $35 million as a minimum has been expended and a considerable proportion of that expenditure has been over and beyond the normal that would have been expended if the growth centre had not taken place.

I cannot anticipate what the Premier and Treasurer will have to say tomorrow night in his Budget speech, but I expect that reference will be made to Albury-Wodonga and growth centres generally. It would be presumptuous for me to say more. I can assure Mr. WaIton that at least following the last Ministerial council meeting which took place in Launceston on 23rd June, the Federal Government is now, for the first time since I have had the honour of holding this portfolio, making a clear statement of intention and concern about the minimum level of funding for the ensuing five years. As Mr. Walton knows that is $5 million, which is a modest sum by comparison with what has been spent in the preceding years in the growth centre, but at least it goes some way towards ending a period of damaging financial uncertainty.

I assure the honorable member and other members of the House that the Victorian Government has not deviated from its delineation of the Albury-Wodonga project as a national project of major significance and as an integral part of our decentralization programme. Within the constraints imposed on our budgeting circumstances, not least the constraints laid down by the Federal Treasury in terms of overseas borrowing-which I might add in some cases is at an attractive rate of interest and repayment termswe will be doing what we can to

sustain the worth-while momentum which this project has already generated.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province): I bring to the attention of the Minister for State Development and Decentralization representing the Minister of Transport, a matter which has been discussed in the House previously. I refer to the Hamilton to Noradjuha railway line. On 16th September last year the Minister of Transport announced that certain so-called poorly patronized Western District railway lines would be closed and an alternative road service would be provided through a system of regional freight centres.

Subsequent to that announcement and after various discussions with the Minister and railway representatives, the local Liberal members of the area expressed reservation about the ability in the short term of the railways to handle bulk commoditie8. particularly superphosphate.

I shall bring the situation up to the present time. The regional freight centres for the movement of rail goods freight are working extremely well-in fact much better than most of the critics would have thought. Following the concern that the local members expressed to the Minister of Transport, the honorable gentleman issued a statement on 28th April that this line would remain open and that it would be available for bulk freight with trains running as required as at present. The problem that has arisen at present is that the railways are not backing the Minister on that statement. The problem has arisen and is still present with the movement of superphosphate.

A proposal has been put forward that we as local members do not believe will work. It is vital that the large quantity of superphosphate required in that area be shifted as and when required.

The three bulk commodities that this line carries are grain from the north of Balmoral, superphosphate and wool. Road transport for the


smaller quantities is a feasible way of moving wool, but the proble!l1s that I wish to bring to the attentIon of the Minister arise particularly from the movement of superphosphate and grain.

We are not quite sure what the railways will do about the grain, but we know what they are proposing about superphosphate. I raise the matter for the attention of the Minister of Transport because the railways are apparently trying to circumvent the Minister's statement of 28th April. I ask the Minister to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport the concern that the proposal will not work. We do ~ot believe the railways are adherIng to the terms of the Minister's statement.

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER (Minister for State Development and Decentralization): I concur with Mr. Chamberlain's criticism of the some.; what chequered history of this railway line in recent months. The policy surrounding it has been largely spelt out by the two Ministerial statements from our colleague the Minister of Transport. The first was made on 16th September last to which Mr. Chamberlain appropriately referred.

My understanding of the position regarding that statement is firstly and quite fundamentally that the assurances given in that statement naturally stand without qualification. I remind the House of the first of those assurances contained on page 2 of the stateme~t when the Minister of Transport saId-

The Government guarantees that country people will not suffer by the closing of the lines. In fact, we confidently expect they will get improved service. The Minister concluded his statement in a similar vein with these words-

At the same time we are making sure that the country people who lose their local rail service will be provided with an improved alternative. From my information, which conforms with that of my colleague, I believe it is correct to say that in terms of general cargo the assurances given in that statement have been fulfilled. It is however a matter of

record that my colleagues and I have had some reservations about the capacity of the alternative service to handle the bulk commodities referred to by Mr. Chamberlain.

I believe the Victorian Railways are not yet equipped to pr.ovide a service which will match up In every respect in complete conformi~y with the Ministerial assurances gIven. I can assure my colleague, therefore, that I look forward to joining with him again in discussing this important local matter with the Minister of Transport.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (North Western Province): Briefly I want to raise a matter with the Minister of Health concerning health. I am concerned, as are many people associated with hospitals, with directives that have been given to hospitals to make rather severe cuts in staffing, by not replacing some staff and reducing some casual staff, and reducing building programmes. Any capital works must first be agreed to by the Premier. There is a list of other directives, including one that ind~ca~es that when the Health CommISSIon budgets are announced, a further 5 per cent reduction can be expected.

I am sure that most people believe health is one of the most important facilities in the community today. It is something that Governments must take great care not to affect throu~h various cuts in expenditure. It IS not sufficient for the State to say that the cuts and the directive result from a reduction in Federal Government funds for hospitals and health services because if the State gives health the priority that it should have it should be meeting the deficiency in these payments to ensure that <?ur health facilities continue to functIon at a high level.

There is also concern that items of maintenance or of a significant nature have to be agreed to before they can be carried out by the hospital management. They haye also to be agreed to by the commI~sion or by some other person. ThIS appears to me to have the effect of


reducing the efficiency of Victoria's health services, which nobody would want to see. Hopefully the Victorian Government will take up any deficiency that exists in Federal funding. I ask the Minister to look deeply at this matter so that Victoria's hospitals can continue to function.

It is alarming, when the House discussed in the last sessional period the inability of our hospitals to cope, the inadequate number of beds and the waiting lists, for a directive to be issued that will ensure limited hospital expansion. I ask the Minister to give to people engaged in the health field some indication that they will not suffer too greatly by Government cuts.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON (Minister of Health): It is true that there are grave misgivings in the health field about the economic problems that face it and also that many people in the health field think it is high time that greater economies were established in the delivery of health services.

As the costs for health services are escalating at 16 per cent and the inflation rate is 10 per cent a year, the time has come to put on the brakes because of the difficult economic situation. The gross operating cost of hospitals for this coming year was expected to be $614 million. The income from fees is $134 million so that the budgeted Government contribution to hospital maintenance amounted to $480 million. The Commonwealth Government determined that this sum could not be met and that it would have to make economies in hospital maintenance expenditure. Therefore, it reduced the amount to $4·8 million, a decrease of $32 million, which represents a 5· 2 per cent cut in the estimated budget for hospitals.

There are many ways in which economies can be made in the health field without affecting in any way services to patients. We are proposing

to assist hospitals as much as possible and, if they ask for assistance, to decide ways in which they can make economies of 5 per cent. That is all that is being asked. It is certainly not beyond the capacity of many hospitals or boards of management to achieve at least that reduction. I know it is beyond some hospitals which are efficiently and economically run and they will not be able to achieve a cut of 5 per cent in their budget, but that does not apply to all hospitals. We are playing our part at the State's hospitals and charities level to assist, to advise and to give directives that will permit economies in the delivery of health services.

The economies are essential because as I say the escalating costs ~f providing health services are dramatically affecting everybody's pockets. Whether people pay for their health services by a levy on their incomes or by contribution to private insurance funds the people of Victoria and Australia'demand that their hospital services and health services be provided efficiently, adequately and economically.

The Hon. H. R. WARD (South Eastern Province): I direct to the attention of the Minister for State Development and Decentralization a report in today's Herald on remarks made at the Shire of Dunmunkle by the Commonwealth Minister for Posts and Telecommunications concerning increased telephone charges. Whilst country areas are in a depressed state and the Department of State Development and Decentralization is endeavouring to assist small businesses, I find it alarming that the Federal Minister should make a statement, which is almost a leakage of Commonwealth proposals, that charges may be increased.

Does the Minister believe such an increase will upset the Victorian Government's decentralization policies and cause people to leave country areas? Will the honorable gentleman make representations to the Federal Minister to ensure that telephone charges are not increased?


Postal charges are already subject to an equalization scheme, but the Federal Government has refused to introduce a similar scheme concerning telephone charges. I ask the Minister for State Development and Decentralization to make strong representations to the Federal Minister for Posts and Telecommunications.

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER (Minister for State Development and Decentralization): I thank Mr. Ward for raising the matter. I am not aware of the article but I find the information disturbing, particularly as any such increase would obviously have an adverse effect on the already embattled position of many farmers and rurally-orientated businesses. It is a matter of record that one of the Victorian Government's objectives in assisting the decentralization programme is to persuade our Federal colleagues that the penalty of differential trunk line charges, and other costs for telephones and telecommunications generally, is one of the principal impediments to the operations of farmers and rural businesses. There is no argument about that although there may be some dispute as to how high the penalty is.

Since I have been Minister for State Development and Decentralization, on visits to country Victoria, I have made it a practice to inquire of a wide cross-section of businessmen and citizens generally in country areas what is the prinCipal penalty for operating a business in a particular area. Almost without exception, the answer is that the principal cost penalty is the cost of trunk line telephone charges. Therefore, it is of no surprise that over the years this matter has been the subject of repeated and strong representations to successive Federal Ministers in the portfolio that Mr. Robinson now holds. Quite recently, I had occasion to write to the present Minister on this subject. Although there has been a lack of progress in

effecting a change in Federal Government policy, the Victorian Government will continue to pursue the matter with as much vigour as possible.

I assure the House, and I also assure Mr. Ward, that I will take steps immediately to put the Victorian Government's pOint of view as vigorously and as robustly as I can, pointing out, as Mr. Ward has already done tonight, that it would be quite unwarranted to increase telephone charges and would conflict with the Victorian Government's stated objective, and indeed the whole thrust of its decentralization policy, which is to achieve a better balance of population by strengthening country areas per medium of diminishing and where possible eliminating cost penalties. An increase in telephone charges would be directly in the opposite direction. Despite the fact that in the past the Victorian Government has not had a very sympathetic hearing from Federal Ministers, I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, we will see decentralization become a national objective supported by governments of all levels and therefore there will be some breakthrough in this important area.

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE.

WERRIBEE RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION WORK.

(Question No. 375)

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

When is it proposed to commence work on the electrification of the railway to Werribee?

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER (Minister for State Development and Decentralization): The answer supplied by the Minister of Transport is-

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] on Notice. 9079

Design work is proceeding and orders will be placed for materials. The board has advised me that construction will begin during the 1979-80 financial year and be completed towards the end of 1981, providing there is an appropriate flow of funds.

RIDDELLS CREEK PRIMARY SCHOOL.

(Question No. 449)

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE (Bendigo Province) asked the Attorney-General, for the Minister of Education-

In view of the considerable delay in the preparation of the necessary papers for land acquisition for a new site for the Riddells Creek Primary School-(i) when will the resumption certificate be presented to Parliament; and (ii) will there be sufficient time to allow land acquisition, design, and construction of the new school building before the school year starts in 1979?

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General) : The answer supplied by the Minister of Education is-

The Minister of Education advised the honorable member by letter dated 30th August, 1977, as follows-

(i) Resumption certificates for acquisition of a replacement site for this school were approved by the Governor in Council on 23rd August, 1977, and were forwarded to both Houses of Parliament on 26th August, 1977. These documents must lie on the tables of both Houses for a period of 30 days after which notice of acquisition can be served on the owners.

(ii) Planning for the construction of the building is not behind schedule.

ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST PRISON OFFICER.

(Question No. 450)

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Thomastown) asked the Minister of Health, for the Minister for Social Welfare--

(a) As the Minister for Social Welfare has alleged that Prison Officer Deller was transferred from Pentridge Prison to the Law Courts because his life has been threatened by a person or persons within Pentridge, why has no action been taken against the person or persons concerned, under seceion 137 (1) of the Social Welfare Act 1970?

(b) Will the Minister table copies of proof of these alleged threats?

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON (Minister of Health): Theanswer supplied by the Minister for Social Welfare is-

(a) Information came into the possession of senior prison authorities which led to the belief that Prison Officer Deller's safety was at risk.

This information was conveyed to senior officers mainly by innuendo, and after assessing their reports it was considered that substantial charges could not be made out as it was impossible to identify the exact originating sources of the threats and the persons involved.

It is worth noting that Mrs. Deller reported to the press that she and her husband had received threatening telephone calls, possibly from prisoners' associates.

(b) No. Details of the threats are contained in confidential reports relevant to the security at Pentridge.

PUCKAPUNYAL MILITARY CAMP. (Question No. 457)

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE (Bendigo Province) asked the Chief Secretary, for the Premier-

(a) Has the Commonwealth Government made formal application to the State Government for the acquisition of approximately 12,000 hectares of forest land to increase the military camp at Puckapunyal: if so, has the Government considered such request?

(b) Has the Government considered compensation by way of money or land exchange with the Commonwealth, or a combination of both?

( c) In view of the considerable delay surrounding this proposal, when is it likely that finalization will be reached?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The answer supplied by the Premier and Treasurer is-

(a) No formal application has been made. However, the State Government has considered several aspects of a Commonwealth proposal for the extension of the area occupied by the Puckapunyal Army Training Camp by approximately 20,000 hectares.

(b) Yes.

(c) This will depend upon further approaches by the Commonwealth Government.

9080 Questions [COUNCIL.] on Notice.

FIRES IN OIL INSTALLATIONS AND REFINERIES.

(Question No. 463)

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) asked the Chief Secretary-

(a) How many fires have occurred in oil installations and refineries in Victoria in the past two years; and what were the causes of the fires?

(b) What action has been taken to stop a recurrence of such fires?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The answer is-

(a) Seventeen fires occurred in oil installations and refineries in Victoria during 1975 and 1976. The fires were attributed to the following probable causes-

Cause No. of Fires Vapour in contact with 1

hot metal Metallic spark 2 Spark from cutting tool 3 Overheating of bitumen 1 Spontaneous ignition 1 Static electricity 2 Unknown 7

Total 17

(b) Fifteen of the fires were of a minor nature. Consequently, special measures to prevent a recurrence were not required. The other two fires which occurred whilst a rail tanker and a road tanker vehicle, respectively, were being filled were caused by static electricity.

In the case of the rail tanker fire the method of filling the tankers was subsequently altered to minimize the build up of static electricity.

With respect to the fire involving the road tanker vehicle the static electricity which ignited the vapour was generated by a method of filling which violated standard safety procedures. Consequently, the company which owns the vehicle issued written lDstructions to its agents and employees warning against the dangers of such violation. In addition, as part of its regular training programme the company has placed special emphasis on the necessity for personnel to adhere to standard safety procedures which were designed to minimize the generation of static electricity.

I am advised that, as a consequence of the two fires, inspectors from the Explosives and Gas Examining Branch of the Mines Department, who inspect oil instal-

Iations licensed under the Inflammable Liquids Act, ensure that appropriate measures are adopted to minimize the build up of static electricity when tankers are being filled.

RATE RELIEF TO PENSIONERS. (Question No. 470)

The Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash Province) asked the Chief Secretary, for the Treasurer-

Having regard to the increaSing number of persons over 65 years of age in the population and to any other relevant trends, can the Treasurer provide any estimates of the comparative extent of rate relief to pensioners, on the law as it now stands, comparing the current year with 5, 10 and 15 years hence, or any other future time, in terms of numbers of pensioners, proportion of population, receivlDg relief, proportion of Victorian G.D.P. devoted to rate relief or other appropriate measures?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The answer supplied by the Premier and Treasurer is

Estimates of the nature requested by the honorable member are not available.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT STORES BRANCH.

(Question No. 475)

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (North Western Province) asked the Attorney-General, for the Minister of Education-

(a) Is it the intention of the Government to close the stores branch of the Education Department; if so, why?

(b) What changes (if any) and for what reasons, are proposed in the operation and service provided by the branch?

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General): The answer supplied by the Minister of Education is-

The Minister of Education advised the honorable member by letter dated the 2nd September, 1977, as follows-

cc (a) I desire to say that it is not the intention of the Government to close the stores branch of the Education Department.

(b) While no changes at this time are proposed in its operation, a committee has been established to examine the possibility of providing schools with grant funds to enable decisions to be made locally, as to whether purchases will be made from the store or elsewhere."


LOCOMOTIVES. (Question No. 480)

The Hon. K. I. WRIGH'r (North Western Province) asked the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, for the Minister of Transport-

(a) Axe Victorian Railways servicing and repair services operating behind requirements to such an extent that, at any given time, at least 30 locomotives are undergoing service and maintenance; if so, what steps are being taken by the Minister of Transport to ensure that Victorian grain is transported adequately and efficiently?

(b) How many locomotives are operated by the Victorian Railways?

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER (Minister for State Development and Decentralization): The answer sup.,. plied by the Minister of Transport is-

(a) There are occasions when 30 locomotives are undergoing service and maintenance at the one time. The majority of these are shunting and electric locomotives and are not employed in the haulage of grain.

The Victorian Railways currently have ten 3300 h.p. locomotives on order the first of which is expected to be delivered late in May.

(b) Three hundred and eighteen.

ADDITIONAL SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR MELTON.

(Question No. 481)

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) asked the Attorney-General, for the Minister of Education-

Further to question No. 366 answered in this House on 19th April, 1977, who are the personnel who comprise the ad hoc investigating committee, and what are their qualifications?

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General): The answer supplied by the Minister of Education is-

The Minister of Education advised the honorable member by letter dated 1st September, 1977, as follows-

"The members of the ad hoc investigating committee were:-

11 Chairman: Regional Director of Sunshine or the Assistant Regional Director.

Members: Mr. B. Treyvaud-Executive Officer of

the Priorities Review Committee Sunshine Region.

Mr. M. Creati, Principal, MeIton High School.

Mr. G. Rogers, Principal, Coburn Primary School.

Miss J. Phillips, Principal, Melton West Primary School.

Mr. R. Sloan, Assistant Shire Engineer Shire of Melton.

Mr. P. Meyer, District Inspector of Schools, Melton.

Mr. L. Boyd, Community Development Officer, Melton Resource Centre.

Mr. G. Morgan, Building Liaison Officer, Education Dep~tment."

ijtgislntittt Asstmhly.

Tuesday, September 6, 1977.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler) took the chair at 4.5 p.m. and read the prayer.

THE OPPOSITION. The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler): I inform the House that I have been officially advised of the appointment of Mr. F. N. Wilkes as Leader of the Opposition and Mr. R. C. Fordham as Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

THE MINISTRY. The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler): I also advise the House that the Honorable J. C. M. Balfour, who was previously Minister for Fuel and Power and Minister of Mines, is now designated Minister for Minerals and Energy following the coming into operation of the relevant Act.

USE OF ADVISERS' BOXES. The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler): On 4th May last I undertook to refer to the Standing Orders Committee the question of the use of the advisers' boxes in this Chamber.

9082 Personal [ASSEMBLY.] Explanation.

I have since discussed this matter with the committee and have accepted its advice. I now advise the House that in future the use of each of the advisers' boxes will be limited to officers of the Public Service and officers of statutory corporations who are invited there by Ministers or party Leaders respectively, in order to advise them. This definition, of course, includes private secretaries and research officers, being members of the Public Service attached to Ministers and party Leaders.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): I wish to make a personal explanation concerning an answer given to the honorable member for Melbourne on 20th April this year in reply to question No. 1727. The question was in six parts and related to the Wall an to Broadford section of the Hume Freeway.

The information included in the answer to part 2 of the question was provided by the Country Roads Board and I regret to advise the House that that information was incorrect.

On Friday, 15th July, I received a letter from the Chairman of the Country Roads Board informing me that the information given in the table in the answer to part 2 of the question was incorrect. Immediately I became aware of this error I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, informing you of the position and advising you that I would seek to correct the matter by way of a personal explanation at the earliest possible opportunity. Included in my letter was a table setting out the correct amounts.

On further advice received from you, Mr. Speaker, on Monday 18th July, I immediately wrote t~ the honorable member for Melbourne and to the Leader to the National Party attaching a copy of my letter to you:

I now seek leave to either incorporate in Hansard the amendment to the answer or, if you so direct, Mr. Speaker, I shall read it to the House.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): I ask the Minister to read it to the House.

Mr. RAFFERTY: In the answer to the question there were three columns. The first column was headed "Financial Year". The next column was headed "Galli Contracting Pty. Ltd." and the third column was headed" Apex Quarries Ltd.". The correct amounts for each of the financial years are as follows-

Financial Year Oalli Apex Contracting

Pty. Ltd. Quarries Ltd.

$ $ 1971-72 .. 583,700 1972-73 .. 1,508,102 1973-74 .. 2,747,336 1974-75 .. 6,733,462 1975-76 .. 5,899,982 103,631 1976-77 .. 38,178· 1,057

17,510,670· 104,688

• Final payment on the contract for the Wandong to Sunday Creek section has not yet been made.

SEATING OF MEMBERS. The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler): I notice that a number of honorable members, particularly those of the Opposition, have changed their seating arrangements since the last sessional period.

Mr. WILKES (Leader of the Opposition): I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have not been notified of the change. It is purely my responsibility. I assure you, Sir, that you will be notified as soon as possible.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE.


Mr. WILKES (Leader of the Opposition): I remind the Premier and Treasurer that under section 22 (1) (a) of the Housing Act the Housing Commission is required to obtain his consent, as Treasurer, to any purchases of land. I ask the Treasurer whether he gave his consent to the purchases of 'land at


Pakenham, Melton and Sunbury? If so, what prior steps did he take to satisfy himself that no irregularities had 'Occurred with the initiation, negotiation and finalizati'On 'Of these deals?

Mr. HAM ER (Premier and Treasurer): The question is somewhat detailed. I presume that the honorable member wants a proper answer to this question and he will get it if he puts the question on notice.

NEW GRAIN HANDLING AUTHORITY.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the National Party): Does the Premier intend to table the files relating to the appointment of the new grain handling authority in Victoria as requested in June by the Parliamentary Secretary of the National Party?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): I know of no reason why the files should not be tabled. They are not in my possession. They are in the possession of the Minister of Agriculture, but I will certainly confer with him about tabling the files.

SEAT BELTS. Mrs. PATRICK (Brighton): I direct

a question t'O the Minister representing the Chief Secretary. Has any thought been given to increasing the penalties for not wearing seat belts? If a decision has been made not to increase the penalties, what are the reasons?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): The penalties under the various Acts that relate to motor vehicles, and in particular seat belts, have been considered by the Chief Secretary. He is disP'Osed, however, to increase only the penalty for not wearing seat belts as part of the total review of all penalties that apply generally tD motor vehicle offences in Victoria. Currently the Government is examining the effectiveness of the various innovations that have recently been introduced, including random breath testing and

other legislation. After a period when the Government is in a position to evaluate the effectiveness 'Of this: legislation, it will consider the general' question of penalties for all offences involving motor vehicles.

IMAGE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS. Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray):

I direct a question to the Deputy Premier following his recent statement as reported in the National Times that the majority of his colleagues are not here to line their own pockets and that there are few whom he would nDt trust. I ask the Deputy Premier, in the interests of the people of the State, whether he will name those of his colleagues-we are told they are in the minority-who are here to line their own pockets and the few whom he does not trust. Finally, can the Deputy Premier indicate whether any 'Of the reservations he has regarding his colleagues flow from the recent Housing Commission land deals issue?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education): When confronted with a suggestion that politicians and Parliamentarians had a bad image and were out to further their own aims, I vigorously retorted that I believed the majority of people with whom I had come into contact on both sides of the Parliamentary fence were in Parliament to serve the people and to advance this nation.

LUCERNE SEED. Mr. WHITING (Mildura): Has the

Minister of Agriculture seen an article in the Age of 2nd September wherein a senior scientist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is reported to have stated that lucerne seed imported from the United States of America would not be resistant to spotted alpha aphid. In view of the import-: ance of the lucerne seed industry to this State, does the Department of Agriculture support this view and can the Minister clarify the situation for those producers who are particularly' interested in the subject?

9084 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] without Notice.

Mr. I. W. SMITH (Minister of Agriculture): I did not see the article to Iwhich the honorable member alludes, but, as soon as the department was aware that spotted alpha aphid was present in Australia, it sought the services of Dr. Marble from the United States of America, who was here within a fortnight of our knowing about the outbreak. He has travelled around the State advising groups of farmers and seed suppliers on the steps that they should take to protect their stands of lucerne and to replant them if they are affected, and also on the type of seed that would be the most suitable based on experience gained in California where spotted alfalfa aphid destroyed a lucerne crop some years ago.

Some people may well be buying seed which is not of a resistant strain, but if they care to check with their local Department of Agriculture adviser they will get the names of resistant strains and then they should only buy and plant those strains.

JORDANVILLE FAMILY PLANNING CLINIC.

Mr. McLAREN (Bennettswood): I ask the Assistant Minister of Health whether the Department of Health has closed the family planning clinic at Jordanville? If so, why was this action taken and what steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that this service is provided to the residents of this area?

Mr. JONA (Assistant Minister of Health) : It is true that the Department of Health, after consultation with the Waverley City Council, has closed the family planning clinic at Jordanville which was situated in the infant welfare centre. The reason for the closure was that since the clinic opened in March, 1976, it has averaged only about one to two consultations in each three-hour session. On that basis, I am sure that this House will agree that it was not a wise expenditure of funds, especially when those one or two persons who were seeking the services in each three-hour session could receive the

same advice and counselling at the Brandon Park clinic, which is also within the municipality of Waverley.

Quite clearly, these is a need for a family planning service in the western portion of the Waverley 'municipality and, accordingly, officers of the department are currently having discussions with the Waverley City Council with a view to establishing another centre in the western part of the municipality which will be more central for the residents of the area.


Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North): I ask the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary, whether a police inquiry was ordered into the purchase of land at Sunbury by the Housing Commission and, if so, is a copy of the report available and will the Minister ask the Chief Secretary to make a copy available for perusal by members of this House?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): In view of the complexity of the general question and the subject-matter involved, I ask that the question be placed on notice.

KEYSBOROUGH TROTTING COMPLEX.

Mr. McINNES (Gippsland South): I ask the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation whether a feasibility study has been conducted into the proposal that the Trotting Control Board establish a trotting complex at Keysborough and, if so, what the recommendations of the study are.

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation): A feasibility study has been conducted by officers of the Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation, in conjunction with officers of the Treasury, into the question of establishing a trotting track at Keysborough. The current situation is that the study has been made available to the Chairman of the Trotting Control Board for his perusal.

At this stage the recommendations made within the study are recommendations to the department and

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] without Notice. 908S

such announcements as may be appropriate as a result of the study will be made by me at a suitable time.

FOOTBALL TRIP TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

Mr. COLEMAN (Syndal): Can the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation advise the House whether his department funded the recent trip of an under-seventeen team of Australian rules footballers to Papua New Guinea and, if so, will the Minister give consideration to sponsoring a similar trip for a team of rugby football players of a similar age, as it is considered that rugby is the senior game?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation): The Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation makes grants available to the Junior Football Council of Victoria. In the first year the grants were $100,000; in the second year they were $120,000; in the third year the amount was $130,000; and this year the grants will amount to $180,000.

Those funds are made available to be used at the discretion of the Junior Football Council of Victoria, which submits a budget to the Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation. In my original discussions with the Junior Football Council I indicated that I would like it to consider sending footballers under seventeen from Victoria to Papua New Guinea and having footballers of the same age coming from Papua New Guinea to Victoria. The administrators of the council found it appropriate to authorize those events on an annual basis.

The trips have a twofold purpose. One purpose is to show the people of Papua New Guinea that we in Victoria, as Victorians, have an interest in their well-being and an exchange of information. The second is that it is extremely useful for Australian rules football to have a link with Papua New Guinea, where the game is well established.

It is of interest to note that the under-seventeen Victorian team won three of its four matches and the fact that the Papuan New Guinean team won a match is an indication of how strongly the game is growing in Papua New Guinea.

Whether rugby teams should travel overseas for Australia in a general sporting context and the financing for such operations is essentially a matter for the Federal Government.


Mr. HOLDING (Richmond): Can the Minister of Housing inform the House whether, to his knowledge, he or any other Minister has received a police report on inquiries he initiated into land deals? Can the Minister also inform the House whether such report, if received, recommended any and, if so, what prosecutions and, if not, can he inform the House what recommendations were made and what action the Government proposes to take in the light of any such recommendations?

Mr. HAYES (Minister of Housing): I am the only Minister so far as I can recall-and I say that quite franldywho received reports from the police subsequent to the inquiry which was sought of them. Those reports have

been handed to the board of inquiry and, naturally, what flowed from those reports, interim though they were, led to the establishment of that board.

DECENTRALIZATION OF BAKERIES.

Mr. JASPER (Murray Valley): I ask the Premier: Has the Government recently considered classifying country bakeries as decentralized industries? If so, when will they be included in the list of decentralized industries?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): I think this question should rightly be directed to the Minister for State Development and Decentralization. I am not aware of


any such application or consideration, but I invite the honorable member to take it up with the appropriate Minister and he may get a more upto-date answer·

BANK HOLDUPS. Mr. SKEGGS (lvanhoe): I ask the

the Minister representing the Chief Secretary: Having regard to the increasing incidence of bank holdups, will the honorable gentleman ask the Chief Secretary to give consideration to calHng a conference between banks, security organizations and the po~ice to look at ways of improving security measures at banks.

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): The Chief Secretary is very concerned and disturbed at the number of bank holdups that have occurred, and has already initiated a number of conferences including the representatives to whom the honorable member alluded.


Mr. EDMUNDS (Ascot Vale): I ask a question of the Minister representing the Chief Secretary. In view of the reply given by the Minister of Housing to the honorable member for Richmond, which stated that reports have been handed. to the board of inquiry as part of a submission, can the Minister tell the House whether any restriction has been placed on the Victorian police in continuing to prosecute anybody involved in this nefarious activity and has any action been taken to restrain the Victorian police from continuing their investigations into this matter?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): I am not aware of any constraint placed on the police at any time by the Government. Having said that, I hasten to assure the honorable member that I was overseas at the time alluded to. Generally the role of the police in the whole of this matter is as detailed by the Minister of Housing in his response to a question that was initiated·· earlier in- the proceedings.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES.

Mr. REESE (Heatherton): I ask the Minister for Social Welfare what steps are proposed by the department to assist research for the delivery of better co-ordinated services for the needs of child and family services?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Social Welfare): The question of co-operation and integration of child and family services is one that needs to be taken up to a much greater extent than has yet been done. My department has recently announced a grant of $20,000 to the Children's Welfare Association to precipitate a research project in the southern region.

It has three major objectives. The first objective is to try to ensure that where children may be at risk, or families are in danger of breaking up, preventive measures are able to be taken speedily. The second alternative is that if in fact there is some need to remove children from within the family circle, there will be places available within that community so there will be no need to remove the children from within that particular locality. The third objective involves further work being done into alternatives to leaving children within an institutional framework. I believe the research project to be conducted by the Children's Welfare Association under the supervIsIon of the Social Welfare Department is a good example of co-operation between the Government and a private organization within the general area of family and children's welfare services.


Mr. JONES (Melbourne): I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Does a record of the expenditure of public funds on the Pakenham, Melton and Sunbury land deals by the Housing Commission of Victoria appear in any


State Budget, Auditor-General's report or other financial document prepared and presented to this House? If so, where?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): The funds expended by the Housing Commission are their own; in other words, they are controlled by the Housing Commission. The funds made available to the commission under the Commonwealth agreement come through the Treasury and are recorded there in proper form. The actual expenditure in detail of the funds is a matter for the Housing Commission and appears, I am sure, in the annual report of the Housing Commission.

MIGRANT CITIZENSHIP ACTION COMMITTEE.

Mr. SUGGETT (Bentleigh): Has the attention of the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to a pamphlet that is being circulated by an organization known as the Migrant Citizenship Action Committee, encouraging citizenship, and further, is this organization sponsored by a State or the Federal Government?

Mr. JONA (Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs): Yes, my attention has been drawn to an organization known as the Migrant Citizenship Action Committee. I was invited to participate with that organization in a campaign to encourage new settlers in this country to take out citizenship. I refused to do so because I do not believe in and I do not think the House would indicate any support for an organization involving itself in motives of such a political bias as has been shown by that committee. r hasten to point out that the pamphlet produced by that organization-incidentally the organization does not receive any Government funds, Commonwealth or State-contains a number of inaccuracies which are extremely misleading to people who may be contemplating taking out citizenship.

Furthermore, to indicate the degree of political bias within that organization I point out that the document

is authorized by the Secretary of the Storemen and Packers Union, Mr. Bill Landeryou, who is the former shadow Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in this State. People who wish to take advantage of the services of this independent organization are invited to contact 246 Church Street, Richmond, which by coincidence happens to be the electoral office of the honorable member for Richmond who at the time of the publication of the pamphlet was the Leader of the Opposition.

For those reasons it will be seen that my refusal to co-operate with the organization on the grounds of its political bias is justified.


Mr. CATHIE (Carrum): Has the Minister of Housing asked the ValuerGeneral about an assumption of prior knowledge regarding residential zoning referred to in the Sunbury land valuation by the Valuer-General's Office? If so, when did he ask and what was the reason given for the assumption?

Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): The honorable member knows that the Valuer-General is responsible to the Minister for Local Government.

HIGH SCHOOL FOR SWIFfS CREEK.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East): Will the Minister of Education lay on the table of the Library the files relating to the establishment of high school facilities at Swifts Creek?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education): The department had a difficult problem in trying to reconcile the competing interests of Omeo and Swifts Creek. A decision was finally made in favour of Swifts Creek, and I should be happy to make the file and any other information relating to the matter immediately available to the honorable me~ber.


TRANSPORT STRIKE. Mr. RICHARDSON (Forest Hill):

I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it a fact that railway and tramway workers are using as their reason for today's strike the refusal of the Goverment to pay the claim that has been made on it by their unions?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): That is one of the claims that has been made by the unions. I have already described the strike publicly as a stupid, irresponsible and childish act.

Fortunately, today the Victorian Railways were able to bring the matter before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and I might say that when the strike was called yesterday the matter had already been listed for hearing before the commission on Thursday.

The unions have been told on numerous occasions that the Government cannot and will not accede to their requests for direct payments of additional moneys. They have been told repeatedly that the only way in which additional moneys can be made available to them is through the proper process-that is, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

I am happy to say that the matter came before the commission today instead of Thursday, and I understand that the commission has asked the railways unions to go away and represent to it a properly documented case on 16th September.


Mr. ROPER (Brunswick): When did the Premier first become aware that documents were missing from the Housing Commission file on the Sunbury land deal, and what action did he take when he became aware of the disappearance of the documents?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): I am not aware of the disappearance of any such documents.

PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE AT POINT COOK.

Mr. HUDSON (Werribee): Is the Minister for Planning aware of newspaper reports that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is negotiating to purchase land at Point Cook, and if so, what are the latest developments in the purchase and to what use will the land be put?

Mr. HAYES (Minister for Planning): The Board of Works indicated some time ago in an amended planning scheme now before the Town and Country Planning Board for report the proposed establishment of a metropolitan park around the AltonaWerribee foreshore, including the Point Cook homestead.

The report from the Town and Country Planning Board is not yet with me, although I understand from the Board of Works that an approach has been made by owners concerned in the area.

To date there has been one conversation with the owners. The board has not made an offer, and at present there is a large disparity between the price asked and the price offered.

PAYMENT OF STRIKING EMPLOYEES.

Mr. McCLURE (Bendigo): Can the Minister of Transport advise the House whether either the Victorian Railways or the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board will be making any payment to their staffs in respect of today's strike?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): The normal practice is that striking employees would not receive payment, and I certainly believe they will not receive it for today.


Mr. FOGARTY (Sunshine): The Minister of Housing has admitted that he initiated moves for police intervention in the Housing Commission controversy involving land at Sunbury, Pakenham and Melton.


At that time did he offer to resign his portfolio; if so, what were the reasons given and why did the Premier refuse to accept the resignation?

Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): I have heard various suggestions to that effect, but none of them has emanated from me.

FAMILY VISITS AT ARARAT PRISON.

Mr. McARTHUR (Ringwood): I direct a question to the Minister for Social Welfare, and refer to a report last week that prisoners at Ararat Prison were receiving private family visitors as an experimental scheme. Can the Minister inform the House of some details of this scheme-for instance, how long has it been going on, how does it actually work, and is it secure?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Social Welfare) : From 1 st May, sixteen long-term prisoners at Ararat Prison have been receiving private visits from members of their families. The arrangements for these visits are secure. They take place in a separate area provided for the purpose. The area is quite spacious and has kitchen facilities and also a yard or garden area.

The visits were approved as a result of discussions with the Governor of Ararat Prison, prison officers, and the prisoners themselves. As I have indicated, these arrangements have been in operation for four months. The visits are for half a day a month for each family. Thus far, they have been successful and, I believe, have contributed much to the quality of life at the prison.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICIES AND LAND PURCHASES.

Mr. HAYES (Minister of Housing): I desire to make a Ministerial statement concerning Government policies as implemented by the Housing Commission.

Session 1977.-315

By way of background for the benefit of the House and in order to allow a full canvass of present policies, I wish to restate that the Government strongly supports the principle of home ownership by any Victorian family which can affordor can be helped to purchase-a home of their own.

We do this for many excellent reasons, the most fundamentally important being the perceived right of every Australian family to own their piece of Australia. We believe home ownership makes better citizens, allows low-income families to participate in the economic wealth of this country and consequently leads to over-all improvement in our community's and the Australian way of life. The Victorian Liberal Party Government has pursued that belief -that policy-since 1955, and with vigour! In so far as the Housing Commission is concerned, it has provided since its formation in 1938 in excess of 84,000 dwellings for Vic-· torians-to the extent that one person in twelve is being helped with housing, through the commission. Of that number, more than half-44,511 in fact-have been or are being purchased with Housing Commission help.

When the Honorable R. J. Hamer succeeded the Honorable Sir Henry Bolte as Premier of Victoria in August 1972, he immediately announced a number of top priority policy matters. Decentralization was given the highest priority in these policy announcements. In broad terms, it meant that Government action was to be directed towards the development of country towns, with special emphasis being applied to at least a half dozen of the largest provincial centres.

The highest priority was to be given to housing needs in all country towns and the operations of the Housing Commission were to be scaled down within Greater Melbourne and no further Housing Commission high-rise flats for family units were to be built.

9090 Ministerial [ASSEMBLY.] Statement.

It was recognized that the key to decentralization was with industrial development in country towns and the necessary housing to cater for the needs of families who were either prepared to remain in a country town or move there from the metropolitan area where new job opportunities were created. It was also recognized that, irrespective of how much Government assistance was forthcoming to decentralize, there would always be families who would prefer to live in the big city and there were industries which had no desire to move away from Melbourne.

Equally it was accepted that Melbourne would continue to be a magnet for many, and therefore a programme was devised whereby a number of satellite towns would be developed by the Housing Commission, in conjunction with private developers, around the perimeter of Greater Melbourne, but at a distance from the perimeter which would permit people to commute within the hour to their place of work in Melbourne, and still give them all the benefits of living in a country environment. At least twelve towns, which were within one hour's travelling of Melbourne, were considered by the Government as being places for such development. In the Melbourne Herald of 29th March, 1973, the Government intent was announced regarding the establishment of new towns. It was announced then that twelve opportunities were being looked at. My predecessor, the Hon. V. O. Dickie, then said:

We want to get people out of the concrete jungle of the big city. He further said-

We are determined that, from now onparticularly in the dOrmitory towns--commi!lsion houses will not be "typed". Both in design and location, our houses will blend with the pattern of the town. The Government determined to buy large tracts of land, within reasonable commuting distance of Melbourne, as a deliberate policy to counter urban sprawl around Melbourne's periphery and to assist in developing new types

Mr. Haves.

of residential settlements, totally integrated. The reason for wishing to buy large tracts of land was to allow for implementing the Government's new policy of social mix-a policy allOWing for Government housing to be integrated within a total residential complex, aesthetically indistinguishable from its neighbour, such that in these Government-sponsored housing projects no more than onethird of the housing stock created would be provided to people needing Government housing help. It was also designed as a positive intervention in the residential land market then obtaining in Melbourne, to increase supplies of lots and dampen rapidly rising prices.

Of the twelve opportunities under review during 1973, the Government opted for three-Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton. The Government approved the seeking of land in these general areas in April, July and September of 1973 and precise locations were, in each case, subsequently selected and purchases effected.

Land purchase for residential development in each of those three areas afforded the opportunity of creating new, integrated communities in the satellite town situation to which I have previously referredwith the prospect of ease of co mmuting to central Melbourne should that be necessary, access to growing local employment opportunities; the chance for Government to quite directly effect a balancing situation around Melbourne, yet in a way not connected to its then urban sprawl; selfcontained, moderate-sized communities with which new residents could develop and feel a rapport, yet in each case offering a diversity of life style suited to each.

That policy was welcomed and applauded. I quote from an Age editorial of 20th September, 1973, bearing on that topic. It included this statement-

Instead of attacking spiralling land prices with the imperfect weapon of price control, the Hamer Government has wisely preferred to use a blend of competition and compassion. Instead of running the risk of


distorting the market, the Government has entered it in the interests of the cc small man" . . . Thus, unlike some of the Federal Labor Government's proposals, the Victorian Government's plan deserves high marks both for economic sense and social justice.

Those three Housing Commission land purchases, so welcome then in principle and potential effect, have now been cast in doubt and three observations are pertinent.

Firstly, the Housing Commission was directed by the Government to buy parcels of land in these places, the Government having fully considered the potential of at least twelve country towns near Melbourne, and decided on the three mentioned, namely Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton.

Secondly, over the 22 years of successful Liberal Government in Victoria, it has been firm policy not to compulsorily acquire land, other than as a last resort. Each of the three parcels of land purchased by the commission and now under scrutiny by a board of inquiry, was valued by the Valuer-General. Subsequently, contracts of sale were negotiated with the owners of the land-in each case at a price less than that assessed by the Valuer-General.

Thirdly, 1973 and 1974 .were land boom years-the land market was at its peak-and so the Housing Commission competed with the market that then obtained.

It is common knowledge now that a number of developers-many wellknown in the field, or formerly sohave since " taken the knock". They bought at the peak and many found it difficult to service their commitments. There is no need to mention namesthey should all be well known to honorable members. Yet nobody has suggested raking over the coals of the disasters within the private sector which followed the 1973 land boom. Nor has it been suggested that land purchasing arrangements by other Governments, at that time, should now be viewed in retrospect.

I could cite one comparative example for the information of all honorable members. It concerns land purchased by the Commonwealth defence service homes in the Parish of Yuroke, near Craigieburn. An area of 326 acres was sold in August, 1972, to a developer, by the original owners, for $187,000. Several subsequent sales and transfers took place between August, 1972, and August, 1974-each one at a considerable profit.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows): I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule whether this section of the Ministerial statement is in order. As I understand it, a Ministerial statement has to be confined to matters under the Minister's jurisdiction or matters affecting the department for which he has Ministerial responsibili ty.

I also refer to a previous occasion when a Minister-the then AttorneyGeneral-made what he claimed to be a Ministerial statement but which in the opinion of many honorable members of this House was strictly a political speech. I submit that the Minister of Housing is now delivering a political speech and not a Ministerial statement.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! On page 336 of the nineteenth edition of May, under the heading " Ministerial Statements ", the following appears-

Explanations are made in the House by Ministers on behalf of the Government regarding their domestic and foreign policy; stating the advice they have tendered to the Sovereign regarding their retention of office or the dissolution of Parliament; announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business. These explanations are now sometimes elicited by arrangement in reply to a question.

This statement was referred to me earlier, which is the custom and requirement, and prior to coming into the House I read it carefully. r believe the Minister is in order provided that he does not traverse the matter to the extent of being critical of what another Parliament has done.


Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): As the House may recall, I was giving a comparative example of what had occurred within the private sector and other Government sectors at that time. I mentioned some land at Craigieburn which totalled 326 acres and which had been sold by the original owner to a developer in August, 1972. Several subsequent transfers took place between 1972 and 1973, each one at a considerable profit.

On 30th August, 1974, the land was again sold to a developer for $908,750 and on the very same day it was transferred to Commonwealth defence service homes for $1·485 million. In two years there was a capital appreciation of almost 700 per cent, and, a "same day" payment by the then Federal Government showing a gain-a 24-hour gain----of 63 per cent to a one-day vendor.

Honorable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! I am having difficulty hearing the Minister and I ask him to speak as loudly as possible. I also ask honorable members to refrain from continually interjecting.

Mr. HAYES: It is ironic that at the very same time the then Federal Minister for Housing-responsible for this remarkable land purchasequeried the Housing Commission land purchases at Sunbury and Melton. Maybe my colleagues on the other side should look in detail into this and other Federal Government purchases made during that 1973-74 period. Their findings could be interesting! Incidentally, the Craigieburn defence service homes land is still undeveloped and, I believe, is about to be placed on the market for sale as broad acres, as it was, in 1972!

But the Housing Commission is now under fire-and not for the first time-in respect of these three land purchases.

The Government, to dispel any doubts Whatsoever, to put to rest various allegations and innuendoes

once and for all, has appointed a board of inquiry for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon-

1. All aspects of and matters arising from the land purchases by the Housing Commission at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton in the years 1973 and 1974, and the proposed development of the land so purchased, and in particular to report in each case-

(a) whether any person was guilty of any impropriety, breach of law or duty, negligence or act of dishonesty in relation thereto;


(c) whether the valuation, or valuations, preceding the purchase was, or were, properly made and based;

(d) whether the price was fair and reasonable.

2. Whether the procedures and methods employed and the practices observed in relation to the purchase of land by the Housing Commission are adequate or whether any and what new procedures, methods and practices should be introduced and adopted in relation ,thereto.

The Government has asked the board, with as little delay as possible, and by 30th November at the latest, to report its opinion resulting from this inquiry. Why 30th November? To provide a full opportunity for debate in this Parliament during the course of the current session. That is our purpose-to seek a full and frank report, available for public scrutiny and for public debate here, in this Parliament, this session.

The board is presently at work and it would be unfair, in the Government's opinion, to canvass in detail now, matters referred to in the terms of reference. A number of persons are due to appear before the board and it is the board's task to. report its


opinion. I certainly would not wish to see particular people, or particular circumstances, prejudged here, under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, during the currency of the board's inquiry. I am sure all honorable members will agree that to do so would be totally unfair to those concerned in the inquiry-and inappropriate too, with an appointed board of inquiry now taking evidence.

The Government has indicated its intent to debate the matter here, in this session, when all the relevant facts are brought to attention.

The relevant facts will include prices paid for the three parcels of land referred to at that time and will also refer to development proposals in train. I should mention, asa matter of record, that following a firm submission-I emphasize the words cc firm submission" because there was an earlier draft submission prior to December to the commission by Pinmore Pty. Ltd. in December of 1976-a submission which allowed for marshalling private capital to help achieve the Government's purpose, formal advertisements were then placed nationally, in the month of February, inviting like-minded groups to register interest in joining the commission in various joint venture opportunities. Fifty-four such submissions have been received, interviews have been conducted, and as a result a short list of registrants thought to be appropriate has been compiled. They are-or were-due to be contacted and asked to competitively bid for various housing projects throughout the State. The Government thinks it best not to proceed with these competitive tenders until such time as the board has reported, for to do so now could quite inappropriately anticipate one of the terms of reference given the board.

The principle, however, has already been stated; coincidentally with the advertisements being placed last February, a press statement was issued by me announcing that the commission was anxious to develop

closer -relationships with private builders in the future provision of low-income State housing. Honorable members interested in this topic will no doubt have a copy of that statement which is self-explanatory.

In furtherance of that policy, I intend introducing legislation in this session of Parliament to provide to the Housing Commission the necessary legislative authority to enter into joint ventures with private enterprise firms to allow for their competitive participation in the commission's larger residential developments.

Perhaps I could give the House one example whereby private capital and expertise is being marshalled to assist in the provision of housing in a decentralized area. We-the community-want to see the new Loy Yang power station built. That will require the provision of housing for the work force employed on the project and recently the Decentralized Industry Housing Authority, acting in conjunction with the State Electricity Commission, the Housing Commission and the Treasury, placed advertisements calling for builders to register interest to supply between 300 and 1,000 houses throughout the Latrobe Valley over the next ten years. Builders will use land already owned by the State Electricity Commission, or by the Housing Commission, or land which they themselves already own, and will supply houses on a competitive tender basis, as is justified from time to time by the work force requirements at the power station project. For its part the Government will guarantee to purchase any houses unsold, following a suitable period, through one of its various agencies.

In other words, the private builder does not need to get involved with the capital cost of land, nor perhaps bridging finance associated with servicing costs, yet has a guaranteed ultimate purchaser-one or other agency of the Government. The risks associated with developing new residential areas are minimized:


borrowing facilities for the builders concerned must surely be easier under the circumstances which I have described, and therefore the end cost of the residential projects must be lower than usual. Is not this type of arrangement beneficial to all partiesto the Government for its housing needs in association with an immense project; for the builder in terms of minimizing costs of finance; and therefore for the end-customer in terms of his" end buying" price?

The utilization of private or institutional capital to help develop mixed estates on Government-owned land-and the resultant reduction of Government financial outlay-must have significant advantages, not only for the Government but also for the community of Victoria.

Joint venture objectives are to be pursued by the Government because there is-there always has been-a shortage of resources to be allocated amongst competing uses in Victoria. There never has been enough money to adequately provide for housing demand. When the Housing Commission is in a position to joint venture with private firms a new opportunity to tap fresh sources of capital will eventuate. This will attract, we trust, a very significant increase in the level of funds used in the production of housing generally, and low-income houses for those waiting for Government assistance. The Government is most anxious to use every possible means to encourage the building of more houses and to effect shorter waiting periods for needy families.

The community generally will benefit, because the low-income housing content will be spread unobtrusively ~hrough the normal private developments. No longer will low-income housing cc stick out like a sore thumb", because it will be designed into new housing areas. It will be indistinguishable from any other housing development in the community.

Mr. Hayes.

Low-income families assisted in this way will benefit in particular. They will receive a high standard of accommodation, occupying premises in totally planned and developed communities, which will not have the label of low-income Government housing attached to them-they will be indistinguishable from their neighbours.

This then leads to recent criticism as to the extent of land holdings owned by the Housing Commission throughout Victoria. This criticism appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that all land owned by the commission is to be used to provide low-income Government housing. As I have just explained, this is not the case.

When one considers that, of the land presently owned, only about onethird, in the main, will be used for low-income Government housing production, the extent of the present land holdings falls into a new perspective.

In provincial and country areas the commission is never criticized for owning too much land. In fact, the contrary. The pressure is always on, from local interests, from local members, trying to get the commission to purchase more land holdings and, in fact, the commission is usually requested to purchase sufficient land to ensure a minimum of ten to fifteen years' activity.

I wonder what the OpPOSition criticism would have been had the commission not owned significant tracts of land around Melbourne to allow for mixed housing development to occur, to help overcome the disproportionate waiting time now experienced by those wishing to live and work in ancJ around the metropolis-whether criticism is appropriate to land holdings in country and provincial areas? Had the commission not sought land banks throughout Victoria, I would have thought that the commission could reasonably be subject to more justi~ fiable criticism in those circumstances than it can be at present. It

Ministerial [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 909S

is not possible to build houses without land to erect them on. It is obviously prudent for the largest producer of housing in Victoria to ensure that it has adequate land for its future operations.

Bearing in mind the Government's firm commitment to a policy of social mix in most future developments of sizeable proportion and the disposal of two-thirds of most new developments to achieve this purpose, the commission's present land holdings are certainly not excessive. As a general guide, the intention would normally be to maintain land stock at about the present level by purchasing further areas of land to replace annual usage. This year, howeverand I mention this as an exceptionbecause of the awesome predicament which the home building industry faces, the commission has been asked to minimize its land stock replenishment programme-to use every possible dollar in the Budget to provide bricks and mortar; gainful employment for an industry in troubleaffordable houses for people who need shelter.

Recent significant land purchases in such decentralized centres as Sale, Wodonga, Ballarat, Kyneton, Mildura and Bacchus Marsh, ensure adequate medium-term land in most regional centres, to accommodate the dual policies of decentralization and social mix. However, land purchase problems now being encountered in the important centres of Geelong and Bendigo must be overcome, and we are directing activity towards this end. I would not wish the House to get the impression that the commission is not looking for land in Geelong and Bendigo. It is actively doing so. I should not think, by saying there is in general sufficient land in stock, that the House was disappointed when the commission purchased land in Geelong and Bendigo.

Still dealing in bricks and mortar -building work, but not houses as such-there are two other matters that should be taken into account so far as Government policies affecting the Housing Commission's activities

go. It has long been recognized by the Government that new communities created by the Housing Commission and other large developers, go through an initial, difficult period when community facilities are inadequate.

In an endeavour to at least partially overcome such problems in lowincome housing areas, the commission is to make available sufficient funds from now on to provide primary schools and pre-schools in commission developments, where provision of these facilities would otherwise lag significantly behind the settlement of families. Arrangements have already been made for the provision of pre-schools at Whittington, Corio, Werribee and Hastings. Primary schools are at present being planned for Broadmeadows, three schools, and one each at Werribee and Shepparton. I recently visited Broadmeadows with the honorable member for Broadmeadows.

Subject to the availability of funds this programme will be continued and, if possible, extended in the future. All funds will be repayable to the commission by the respective authorities when work has been completed, over a three-year period.

MR. Ross-EDWARDS: They will pay you back, in other words. Plus interest?

Mr. HAYES: Yes, plus interest. The Urban Land Council was

formed in 1975, utilizing the Housing Commission as the instrument through which land would be purchased, subdivided, developed and sold. Significant purchases have been made and development proceeded with. The sale of residential land, at reasonable prices, is a matter of public record. Continued activity in this area in the future will have the desired effects of helping ensure an adequate supply of high-quality residential land, at reasonable prices, in areas to the north-west of Melbourne -achieving, in part, the balanced development of the metropolis which the Government has previously spelled out as being desirable.


By way of information, land stocks at present total some 429 lots under development and 205 lots available for sale, plus 460 broad hectares. The revenue from sale of land is to be used as a revolving fund to finance continuing activity of the council. The anticipated expenditure for the 1977-78 financial year will be in the order of $9 million, of which 75 per cent will accrue from sales and the balance will be allocated to the State by the Commonwealth under the original agreement. It is anticipated that that will be the last loan.

In summary, the commission continues to do an outstanding job throughout Victoria, in providing low-income families with high quality housing, at prices they can afford to pay.

As at 30th June, 1977, the commission had 2,357 units of accommodation in course of erection. It is expected that work will be commenced on another 2,473 during the 1977-78 financial period. It is estimated that between 2,500 and 3,000 of these new units will be completed and occupied during the year. This represents a substantial contribution towards the Government's effort to provide decent housing for every Victorian family, at prices they can afford to pay.

Of the 2,473 new units on which construction will commence this year, 443 will be units to house elderly persons, 1,751 will be houses for families to rent and buy and 279 will be flats erected in medium-density developments.

Some 60 per cent of these new units in 1977-78, a total of 1,455 units, will be erected in regional and country centres. Only 39·95 per cent of the new works progranlme, a total of 988 units, will be located in the metropolitan area. To define that, the metropolitan area will be the area within the metropolitan planning boundaries.

I draw the attention of honorable members to the fact that the production programme is an an inverse ratio to the population of the State. Sixty

Mr. Hayes.

per cent of Victorians live within the Greater Melbourne area and the housing production programme is in a directly inverse proportion to that, hence the Government's decentralization programme.

MR. Ross-EDWARDS: Melton is not in the country, though!

Mr. HAYES: Melton is not in this programme.

Because inflation has hit Government fund allocations, it will be necessary to induce greater participation by private enterprise to supplement short Government finance.

I have, as previously stated, already commenced action to have private enterprise provide an initial 300 homes, of an eventual need of about 1,000, for the Loy Yang project. I expect to announce successful tenderers for this project and the methods to be employed before the end of October, 1977. Further action of a more general nature will ensue, when the Housing Commission has the authority of this House to do so.

The Housing Commission, oyer many years has held a proud place in Victoria-its contribution in both a physical and social sense should not be allowed to be swept under any carpet. Without its presence I wonder how viable many of our country towns would be-how satisfactorily people in need might otherwise be accommodated; and in the present climate how on earth the building trade, particularly smaller country builders and those sub-trades that work with them, would have any hope of survival.

By leave, I move--That this House takes note of the

Ministerial statement forthwith.

Mr. WILKES (Leader of the Opposition): For the past 25 minutes honorable members have listened to a Ministerial statement read by the Minister of Housing which has very little relevance to the matters which should have been the subject of discussion in the House this afternoon.


If, by this tactic, the Government intended to detract from the importance of the Housing Commission's activities and the Government's bungling of land deals in the three particular areas which have been mentioned, it has been unsuccessful. The statement is not in any way relevant to that important matter.

The Opposition has attempted to co-operate with the Government. It informed the Government of its intentions as early as the day before yesterday and, as is the general practice, the Government and the Opposition got together to discuss precisely how the business of the House was to be dealt with on the first and subsequent days of meeting, but on this occasion the Government clearly wants its cake and wants to eat it, too. It wants the right to introduce the Budget at the prime time tomorrow and does not want to give the Opposition the opportunity of moving its relevant motion this afternoon.

In that situation I have no option other than to move an amendment to the motion. Accordingly, I move-

That the following words be added to the motion-CC and arising out of the contents of the statement is of the opinion that the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House".

The Minister spoke today of people being entitled to a home and a block of land. Of course, every young couple in Victoria is entitled to a block of land or a home at a price they can afford to pay, without being locked into a life-long debt caused by high interest rates, a debt that can prove ruinous to them over the years. That should be the right of every person in this State, so the Minister is not putting forward anything new when he expresses that as the desire of the Government. That is a wellknown need and is simply the right of every person in the community who wishes to own his own home.

The need for shelter is as basic as the need for food and drink and it is a criminal act to deny any of those

fundamental rights to anyone within Victoria. I accuse this Government of robbing the people of Victoria of their right to house themselves at a reasonable cost.

Whether the Government is guilty of criminal acts or merely incompetence for which it should be driven from office remains to be seen, as the Minister pointed out, but for whatever reason this Government has squandered millions of dollars buying up land to enrich land speculators rather than to provide shelter for the people who need homes within Victoria about whom the Minister speaks.

My colleagues and I will provide the details of this amazing malfeasance in due course but at the outset I wish to illustrate the Government's grotesque view of the duties and obligations it has. Its actions have amounted to an attack on the living standards and expectations of ordinary working men and women. Men all over Victoria have lost their jobs and their families have been greatly affected. They have either lost their jobs or are about to lose their jobs because the timber industry is in a state of collapse, yet the Minister of Housing talks about the building trade. He asked, "Where would the building trade be?" The building trade has never been in a worse position than it is today.

At the beginning of this month 2,000 timber workers had been retrenched and, according to the Victorian Sawmillers Association, more than 15,000 workers will be sacked by Christmas. That is the state of the timber industry in Victoria today. Why is that so? The sawmillers and the timber workers' union both agree that it is because the people of Victoria are neither buying nor building new homes and no timber is being used. Therefore there will be no timber industry and thousands of families will be faced with the misery of unemployment, with little hope of the workers gaining employment in the future.


As I pointed out, it is projected that 15,000 more workers will be unemployed by Christmas in one industry alone. Why is this so? There are at least 6,000 new homes in Melbourne standing empty today because people are not able to afford to bridge the finance gap or the deposit gap or they cannot take on mortgage commitments involving exorbitant, crippling interest rates. At the same time as these houses stand empty, new home purchases are down 25 per cent, yet the Minister talks about the building trade.

That figure of 6,000 new homes now being vacant in Melbourne is a conservative figure. The honorable member for Carrum revealed the phenomenon of rows of houses standing empty and no one challenged that statement. It was a published statement and the honorable member said there were 1,000 empty new houses in Frankston alone. That is so because people today cannot afford to buy homes. The mind boggles at a situation where there are thousands of empty homes during a time of acute housing shortage.

The people of Victoria are unable to borrow enough money at a sufficiently low rate of interest to allow them to purchase or finance new homes ..

The reason for this is that the house is so expensive that the amount expected to be borrowed to bridge the deposit gap is out of their reach. This Government has presided over a land boom which has put millions of dollars into the pockets of its supporters to the detriment of these unfortunate people. The Premier and his erstwhile Chief Secretary, his onetime Minister of Housing and his Minister for Planning marched in locked step as they spun fantasies about low-cost homes and diverted the $10·6 million funds elsewhere.

If the Government had built lowcost houses or sold low-cost building blocks it would have forced down prices right across the State. The Liberal Party is a party of the highest prices and the highest profit.

Mr. Wilkes.

According to the Housing Industry Association the present cost of building a standard sized house on a standard quarter acre block in Victoria is between $38,000 and $39,000. A wage earner on an average family earnings of $191 a week is able to borrow only $23,700 at 10 per cent interest over a period of 30 years and therefore the deposit gap would be in the vicinity of $15,000. What chance has that wage earner of bridging the deposit gap? He has no chance with rising costs and inflation. The wouldbe home owners are running on a money treadmill and have no hope of getting off. What they can save will not catch up with what they need to buy or build a home in this State.

Miss Betty Thorpe, the Housing Industry Association economist, identifies the increasing cost of home sites and the high interest rates and economic uncertainty as being the main reasons for not only the deposit gap but the fact that the whole industry is in a state of crisis as a result of the decline in construction. The Minister of Housing is aware of this and the Housing Commission ought also to be aware of it. The Victorian Government is responsible for the first factor and the Federal Liberal Government is responsible for the other two factors.

That is briefly the position regarding the private housing sector. The situation in the public housing sector is even worse. One has only to look at the empty acres at Melton, KeiIor, Pakenham, Sunbury, Sunshine, AItona, Werribee and other places across the State to which the Minister adverted to see where the many millions of dollars that could have been used for the development of homes in this State have gone.

Nothing has been achieved in those estates, not one shovel having been pushed in or one sod turned. According to the latest report of the Housing Commission, at 30th June last year the number of outstanding applications for Housing Commission accommodation in Victoria stood at 21,000. I am sure the forthcoming


report will disclose a similar number of people waiting for Housing Commission homes and flats in the current year.

Mr. McCLURE (Bendigo): I raise a point of order. It is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting from a document. I wonder whether he will inform the House what the document is and whether he will table it.

Mr. WILKES (Leader of the Opposition) : I am quoting from copious notes of which you, Mr. Speaker, may have a copy.

The number of outstanding applications for Housing Commission homes at 30th June, 1976, was 21,000. That figure should be increased when the current report of the Housing Commission is tabled in this House. The number of families awaiting houses is about 18,000. About 60,000 persons in Victoria are awaiting Housing Commission accommodation and the Housing Commission has about the same number of empty building blocks undeveloped in this State.

Instead of building more homes the Government has laid out money to buy a bank of land. People are await .. ing accommodation. Notwithstanding the Government's promises and its misrepresentations people can see what the Government's housing policy is and no doubt they will express themselves at the appropriate time.

The policy expressed by the Premier, the Chief Secretary and the Minister for Planning was to spend what money was available in taking up offers of land, speculators clearly making their profits through advance knowledge of real Government policy and intentions. They knew where the Government would buy through the Housing Commission and all they had to do was to buy up the broad farming acres, double, treble or quadruple the price and collect the cheques bearing the Premier's signature.

It should be remembered that everybody is affected by the fact that so many thousands of families are

waiting for Housing Commission homes. This pool of people puts pressure on the market and forces prices up everywhere.

The policies of the Government are the direct cause of deprivation in both the private and public housing sector. But there is little deprivation of speculators and finance companies.

The Government's failure to house people can be stated simply by saying that demand for public housing has increased by one-third since 1972 but the supply of homes has increased by a miserable 0·05 per cent.

During that time, there have been some curious utterances and performances by the Premier and the Chief Secretary in his previous aberration as Minister of Housing.

By interjection South Australia was mentioned. I would point out that South Australia has been able to provide building blocks to intending home builders within 10 miles of the city of Adelaide at a cost of between $7,000 and $10,000. If one makes a comparison, one finds that for a similar block in Melbourne the figure is between $17,000 and $20,000.

I invite honorable members to consider what the Premier and the former Minister of Housing said prior to the election of March, 1976, about what that were doing in housing. In 1975 events were triggered by the offer of the Whitlam Labor Government to provide $26 mi11ion to buy large tracts of land to develop blocks of land for low-income earners. Those blocks would cost from $5,000 to $6,000.

The former Minister of Housing said that this would be tragic because it amounted to Socialism. "Nonsense ", said the Age of 28th January, 1975, and went on to observe that failure to take up the offer would be tragic only for those who yearned for a home which they could not otherwise afford.

The Premier took the hint and went into a public relations exercise which resulted in the banner headline of 22nd February, 1975, "Hamer clinches cheaper land". The Premier was reported as having over-ridden


his Cabinet to clinch a deal with the Labor Government which would peg land prices in Melbourne. Thirty million dollars was to be spent in the next eighteen months developing 25,000 to 30,000 home sites.

Two days later, the then Minister of Housing went further and said that by the end of 1975 blocks of land would be available for $6,000 to $8,000. He spoke of 70,000 blocks available in 36 areas within 20 miles of Melbourne to be released at the rate of 10,000 blocks a year. Interestingly, the Minister also spoke to the Sun News-Pictorial about how enough land would be bought to force private developers to lower prices.

It is a wonder that the honorable gentleman was able to keep a straight face in view of what he knew had happened at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton in 1973 and 1974.

By April, 1975, the Federal funds available had grown to $30 million and the Premier announced that some 42 areas had been set aside for rapid residential development. But May brought a different tale of how the State Government was being forced to abandon its major urban land development programme because it was short of money. It did not expect Commonwealth assistance and used Housing Commission funds to buy the tracts of land to which the Minister adverted.

Money was not forthcoming from the Commonwealth because of the way in which the former Minister of Housing and others had sabotaged the Urban Land Council; and so the 42 rapid growth areas were to stay as they were. Once again, there was a lot of publicity for the trendy, small cc I" Liberal Premier but nothing whatsoever actually on the ground.

Acting on the principle that people have short memories, the Government party had the temerity to make the same worthless promise again during the election campaign preceding the 1976 elections. One vote-catching headline read, "$2,000 deposit buys a block". There was a fanciful tale of how young couples would be able

Mr. Wilkes.

to buy their first block of land for less than $2,000 under this new Government scheme. We know what happened to the young couples.

The Premier said these things. He said young couples would be able to buy a block of land from the Urban Land Council on a deposit of 25 per cent of the total price and that the Government would lend them the rest. What happened to this scheme? Young people voted for the Liberal Party in good faith. How could they be expected to resist the Premier whose smiling face appeared on television and who was reported in banner headlines as stating that the Government would lend 75 per cent of the cost of the land at 10 per cent interest over ten years. But that was the last that was heard of that scheme.

The then Minister for Planning did his bit during the election campaign in supporting what were to be the broken promises of the Premier. He was reported. in banner headlines as stating that there would be building blocks galore. The present Minister should take notice of what his predecessor said, that the large increase in the number of subdivisions would help to arrest the spiral of land prices. Then it was back to the Premier. In his policy speech he included some twaddle about a package deal for young home seekers. The then Minister of Housing, now the Chief Secretary, made yet another statement about eaSing restrictions on young couples wanting to buy developed Housing Commission blocks.

We know that the price of a block of land in the far outer areas of Melbourne is between $17,000 and $20,000. We also know why that is so. The Government has thrown away millions of dollars which were meant to help people, not to provide profits. We can see the hallmarks of corruption. We hope that the corrupt will be exposed and punished, whether they be members of Parliament, members of Cabinet, or the wide boys of the broad acres. They deserve to be punished if their guilt can be determined.


Whatever the reason, there is a housing crisis in Victoria and there is no doubt that the Government is responsible for that crisis.

The history of this State is stained by spectacular examples of graft, corruption and criminal incompetence. I invite honorable members to study this history. In recent years we have seen conflicts of interest, serious irregularities in administration and arrogant denials of many of the basic precepts of the Westminster system. Further back in our history there were many examples of the State's political leaders pillaging the public through shady companies and outrageously corrupt decisions. One Premier was forced to leave his post hurriedly for the relative sanctuary of London and the Agent-General's position.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! I do not see how the Leader of the Opposition can relate this to the Ministerial statement.

Mr. WILKES: I have moved an amendment to the motion, Mr. Speaker, and r am relating my comments to that amendment. I have just pointed out that one Premier was forced to leave his post hurriedly, and no doubt similar thoughts will exercise the mind of several people in the next few months. Another, whose direct descendant, ironically-or perhaps fittingly-sits in another place, used a demagogic facade to obscure his activities in floating bubble companies. Yet another, whose statue is now a familiar landmark to Victorians, arranged a huge railway programme to benefit himself and other land speculators.

But never before has the State been faced with a political crisis as serious as the one it faces today. This c-fisis is not just about the Cabinet's, and more particularly a certain Minister's, complicity in a series of the most sordid scandals possible. It is about the four most basic principles in our democratic system. This is what Ministers just do not seem to understand.

Firstly, it is about whether the concept of Ministerial responsibility retains any meaning in this perverted version of Westminster-type democracy. Secondly, it is about that most serious of government duties and responsibilities-the custody and disposition of the taxpayers' money. Thirdly, it is about the cornerstone of our system, the integrity of government and Ministers. Fourthly, it is about accountability, about a Government secretly making decisions which seriously damaged the community, in the interests of a select group of profiteers whose only qualification was either a Liberal Party membership ticket or an entree card to a Minister or a Government department. These are the basic facts of the matter.

To some of us in this House, the historic concept of Ministerial responsibility still has meaning and relevance. The idea that Ministers are responsible for what goes on in their departments is one of the most basic to our system. In this House we have debated this question on many motions over the past decade or so. But the Government regards this idea as irrelevant, as its very actions show. If the same principles as apply in Great Britain applied here, almost every Minister in this and preceding Liberal Party Governments would have had to resign or would have been forced out of office for disregarding these precepts. Instead, Ministers sit in smug arrogance. unable even to comprehend the depth of their guilt in some of these deals.

It is not unduly materialistic to suggest that a government's most serious responsibility is to care for the taxpayers' money and to expend it efficiently and wisely. The idea that Ministers should not waste, squander or misappropriate these funds is also one of the most basic to our system. But the Government considers that to be irrelevant. Otherwise, the land deals would not have been approved in the way in which they were. The Government has squandered $10·6 million of taxpayers' money in this sordid affair.

9]02 Ministerial [ASSEMBLY.] Statement.

That amount was spent at Sunbury, Pakenham and Melton alone. Other deals involved as much money again but, at this stage, the Opposition does not want to relate the discussion to them. Honorable members on the Government benches often talk about honesty, integrity, law and order, and democracy. They should consider hypocrisy and relate it to some of these deals.

The idea that a government must inspire public trust and confidence in it by acting with integrity is basic, not enly to our system, but to the survival of governments everywhere in the world. But the Victorian Government ignores that principle, which it regards as being irrelevant. Throughout the world governments have come to know that they must trust the people, that they must be open and frank with the public about their policies and the reasons for their decisions. That is a reasonable attitude to be taken by a government. A full and frank discussion of a government's intentions is essential so that the public can judge it by its actions. That is not the case with the Victorian Government and it certainly was not the case with these land deals. But the idea is basic to the principle of enabling the public to participate in a meaningful way in the political life of the State.

The Government is always talking about the system being under attack but it is itself responsible for many attacks on the system. The Government's very actions in these deals is helping to destroy the system. But the Government regards that as irrelevant. We of the Opposition will show today that the Government has failed grieviously on every one of the principles I have mentioned. It has abandoned the concept of Ministerial responsibility; it has squandered the taxpayers' money; it has acted without integrity; and it has acted secretly against the interests of the public of Victoria.

Between 1973 and 1975 the price of land in Melbourne's outer suburbs increased by 58 per cent. That was a

Mr. Wilkes.

substantial increase, but it is relatively insignificant as we shall see. During that period the Government was allocated, by the Federal Labor Party Government, the sum of $25·6 million for the purchase of land. I emphasize that that was Commonwealth, not State, money. But the State Government decided to act first by using Housing Commission funds to buy land. That should have been the responsibility of the Urban Land Council not the Housing Commission. The re~ponsibility of the Housing Commission is to build homes. It should be the responsibility of the Urban Land Council to purchase land on which the Housing Commission can build those homes.

The intended purpose of the purchase of land was to create a land bank which would moderate the rate of price increases and provide lowpriced blocks to prospective home buyers. But this purpose was disregarded by the Government in favor of its own policy of the deals being made by the Housing Commission. We know the result of that. The money was squandered and even today not one house has been built in any of these areas. The Minister has not admitted that, but it is obvious to anyone who walks around Sunbury, Pakenham and Melton that not one house has been built on any of those estates. The three examples of Pakenham, Melton and Sunbury illustrate perfectly what has happened.

On 6th July, 1973, the Sun NewsPictorial reported that the then Minister of Housing, the Honorable V. O. Dickie, had stated that the Government planned to spend at least $5mand perhaps $7m to $8m-on land for a scheme to provide Iow-cost blocks of land to young married couples.

That was on 6th July, 1973. The article continued-

The areas earmarked for the scheme include Gisbome, Pakenham, Cranboume, Berwick, Kilmore, Whittlesea, Kyneton, Melton, Bacchus Marsh and Ballan. Sites up to 1,000 acres will be bought.


The article concluded with a prophetic statement-

Developers and real estate agents yesterday welcomed the move. I am sure they did.

On 26th March, 1974, the then Minister for Planning, the Honorable A. J. Hunt, announced that the Government had declared a total of 116,000 acres at Melton, Sunbury, Plenty, Berwick and Frankston-Moorooduc as investigation areas under the Development Areas Act. The honorable gentleman then said-

The price of land in the areas will not be allowed to soar because of the announcement but will be kept at present prices plus an allowance for normal inflation. That is what the Minister for Planning said about the 116,000 acres of land he purchased.

Mr. HA YES: He did not purchase them.

Mr. WILKES: He set them aside. He used the term that they would "prevent" prices from sky-rocketing. He said that the Government would be prepared to acquire strategic areas if individual owners demanded outrageous prices. The article concluded on another prophetic note--

Mr. Hunt said the Government looked mainly to private enterprise to develop the areas. The Minister ought to know better. The chairman of his campaign committee and another political supporter were already deeply involved in the area and finalizing the last of their deals immediately preceding this announcement by the Minister. Without making any deliberate assertions, I put the question: Should that not require some explanation by the Minister? Of course it should.

In 1973 the Housing Commission bought 936 acres at Pakenham for $2,531,789. The land was acquired in four parcels. The commission bought the Pakenham Park farm of 769 acres from Mr. Roger Duncan for $1,989,089. Another 106 acres was bought from Lensworth Finance Ltd and Delgrange Pty. Ltd. for $372,000. Two other parcels of 37 and 24 acres were acquired for $105,700 and

$65,000 from the O'Briens and the Bramidges. According to the Age of 9th May, 1975, the Deputy Chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, Mr. Broomfield, said the commission raised serious doubts about the suitability of developing the land for residential use before it was bought by the Housing Commission.

The Deputy Chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission went out of his way to advise the Government or his Minister, or presumably the commission, that there were serious doubts about the suitability of developing this land at Pakenham. What did the Government do about that? In July, 1973, the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission wrote to the Housing Commission expressing concern about the purchase of the land and referred to problems relating to drainage and flooding. It was even worse than that, because on 8th May, 1975, the Minister of Water Supply, the Honorable F. J. Granter, was quoted in the Age as stating that the land might not be developed for another 20 to 30 years. Presumably it would take that time to divert the creek that floods the area and development of that land could not be considered until that work had been done. The Government bought that flood-prone land for development. No one else would have bought that land.

Mr. HUDSON: What percentage of the land was flood-prone?

Mr. WILKES: Two-thirds of it is flood-prone. That is a lot of land, when one considers the price the Government paid for it. Despite the advice of the Deputy Chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, and the Minister of Water Supply, the Honorable F. J. Granter, the Government went ahead with the purchase of the land. Private individuals are not allowed to build on a flood-prone block of land, nor should they be, but the Government buys such land for development. That is how stupid the Government can


be. The explanation of the then Minister of Housing, the Honorable V. O. Dickie, was that the price paid was extremely reasonable, and it was a deal the Housing Commission could not afford to pass up. It did not matter whether one had to have a boat to live there; the Government could not afford to pass up the land for development. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous.

Let us consider what the then Minister said. In February, 1973, the Housing Commission brought a huge tract of land, zoned corridor and general farming. The purchase was made nearly six months before any policy announcement by the Government on broad-acre purchases. This may, of course, simply be a matter of public servants anticipating the wishes of the Government or of their political masters. The curious thing is that when the purchase was first mooted it was discovered that the land was subject to a caveat. Honorable members know the effect of a caveat. When a search is done on a parcel or block of land, it obviously causes some concern to the prospective purchaser to know that there is a caveat on the land. This Government has supported legislation in the past to deal with restrictive covenants and caveats on land. Normal practice dictates that the form and conditions of the caveat would have been investigated by any normal intelligent Minister, or the departmental head who was acting on the direction of a Minister. But that was not the case. Its existence should have affected the negotiations and the purchase price, but that was not the case.

If the commission had investigated the caveat or if a Minister had investigated it, the Government would have discovered that it was held by a Mr. Crichlow. Mr. Crichlow and Mr. Harold Weeden, whose precise business relationship must be investigated, sought to interest the Housing Commission in the land through two intermediaries-Mr. Bob Dillon and Mr. Raymond Brian Durston.

Mr. Wilkes.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs: How did Mr. Dillon get into it?

Mr. WILKES: Dillon and Inkster, a firm of real estate agents, were in the peculiar position that on one occasion they acted for the purchaser and on another they received commission from the seller. Theyoperated in two different areas. There should be an explanation of that type of conduct by the Government and the Minister.

Mr. Dillon, the principal of the real estate agents, Dillon and Inkster, appears in this story again and again. Mr. Durston is currently serving a three-year prison sentence after being convicted for falsely imprisoning Mr. Weeden. It may be that the caveat was simply a legal device, which for reasons known only to themselves, neither the Government nor the commission even tried to penetrate or investigate.

In the event, the commission bought this unsuitable land from its original owners, the Duncans. It is understood that better land, not subject to flooding, close to Pakenham township was available for Housing Commission purposes. Why did the Minister not investigate this matter? The Housing Commission knew that there was no excuse, but why did the Minister not make an investigation? How could the Government be sold land of this type? No effort was made by any Minister at that time to make a personal effort to investigate and determine whether what the commission was buying was in the best interest of the Victorian public.

Not content with this incredible series of events, the commission bought all the land except for one small portion owned by Stainton-a small area crucial to the whole package and probably the best part of the entire deal. By failing to buy that land there and then the commission allowed Stainton to sell to Lensworth Finance Ltd. and for that company to sell to Delgrange Investments in such a way that when the commission inevitably purchased the land -even the most stupid person must

Ministerial [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Stat~ment. 9105

have known it would eventually buy the land-the price had rocketed up by 50 per cent in a mere ten months due to the commission's stupidity. That was by design, not by accident. It was by deliberate design. That action ought to be accounted for in this place.

In essence, the crucial facts regarding the entire affair are, firstly, that the Government paid a grossly inflated price for land which was floodprone, one-third of which could not be built on. Let the record stand that, of the land bought for a grossly inflated price two-thirds cannot be built on.


Mr. WILKES: We will hear from the Premier at the appropriate time when he can defend his land deals.

Secondly, the Minister who recommended the purchase was the Honorable V. O. Dickie, and the person who approved of it was the Premier. The honorable gentlemen approved the deal notwithstanding the obvious irregularities involved. Those two honorable gentlemen approved the deal and signed the purchase documents. Thirdly, the valuation of the land was fortuitiously within $100 or so of what the intermediaries wanted. Fourthly, the agents who handled the deal were Dillon and Inkster of Dandenong.

Let us look at Sunbury land deal. The history of the Housing Commission's Sunbury land deal dates back to 1970. In September, 1970, an Adelaide finance company-I might add that an Adelaide finance company could not bring off the sort of deals in South Australia that they could get here without problems or resistance from the Government or the Ministers. They can make huge profits in Victoria but not in Adelaide where the Land Commission inhibits speculators and developers from making money out of the pockets of would-be home owners and land buyers.

The sitting was suspended at 6.14 p.m. until 8.4 p.m.

Mr. WILKES: Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was about to place on the record the history of the Housing Commission's Sunbury land deal which dates back to 1970.

In September, 1970, an Adelaide finance company and a Melbourne land developer took out an option to buy a 460-hectare dairy farm owned by the McMahon family at Sunbury. The finance company, in whose name all subsequent deals were registered, was Lensworth Finance, a subsidiary of Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort. Its silent partner was Brighton developer and consultant Mr. McGregor Aulsebrook (Greg.) Kean.

Lensworth signed a contract with the McMahons giving it an option to buy the land for $2,272,400, $2,000 an acre, on five-year terms.

The McMahons were represented in the deal by Dalgetys, the pastoral firm, and real estate agents Moore Williams and Son. Mr. Kean was a director and shareholder of Aulsebrook (Vic.) Pty. Ltd.---one of the three owners of Moore Williamsfrom 1970 to 1976.

In November, 1971, the Board of Works rezoned nearly 1,000 square kilometres of rural development for possible urban development by the year 2000. But the McMahons' dairy farm was not part of the land rezoned; it was zoned as "corridor" land.

In the middle of 1973, intermediaries acting for Lensworth and the commission discussed the possibility of a sale. The intermediaries were Mr. Greg. Kean of Moore Williams, acting this time for Lensworth, and Dandenong estate agents Dillon and Inkster, who appear in these three deals, on some occasions representing the purchaser and on other occasions representing the buyer and recovering commission accordingly. DilIon and Inkster, according to their principal, ,Mr. Bob 'Dillon, "have negotiated on many previous occasions on behalf of the commission ... " Mr. DilIon said that frankly.


On 8th August, Lensworth appointed Dillon and Inkster to act for it selling the land to an unnamed buyer for $3,400 an acre.

On 9th August the Valuer-General's Office estimated the value of the Sunbury land in a report to the commission as $3,585,750, about $3,500 an acre. The report added that this valuation assumes "prior knowledge of residential rezoning".

On 24th September Lensworth converted its option with the McMahons to one offering $1,859,926, $1,850 an acre, for a cash sale within 90 days.

On 26th September Lensworth sold the land to the Housing Commission for $3,418,604, at a profit of $1,558,678, or 84 per cent. A profit of 84 per cent in that short time is a better gain than that of some professions with which honorable members are associated.

Mr. LOXTON: What about Craigiebum?

Mr. WILKES: It leaves Craigieburn far behind. This is taxpayers' money which the Housing Commission wasted by allowing the company to make a profit of 84 per cent in that short time. The deal was agreed to by the Minister and signed by the Premier. They saw no problems, no irregularities, and nothing strange about that profit or the time factor. In fact, they were eager to buy, as the Chief Secretary said.

On 6th October, Lensworth paid a deposit and signed a contract. In December, 1976, the Town and Country Planning Board found the land was isolated, expensive to service and should not be developed as it was on the Jackson's Creek and was separated from the rest of the area by 200-ft. cliffs. The board's study rated the land as either" poor" or "very poor".

I t is obviously possible to sell this Government a pig in a poke, because it did not know what it was buying. Somebody knew but the Premier and the Minister did not know because they were willing to purchase this land and sign the documents straight

away without worrying about any irregularities such as 200-ft. cliffs and a report by the Town and Country Planning Board stating that the land was poor or very poor and most unsuitable for development.

The Bulla council also opposed the plan but for some reason the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Dickie, rode roughshod over its objections. It did not matter what the local authority said about redevelopment or what the land should be used for, the Minister of Housing was simply hell-bent on the purchase of this "crook" landand it could not be described in any other way because it cannot be used for development. Let the Minister deny it if that is not so.

Since then, the Government has compounded this incredible decision by allowing the Housing Commission to enter into a joint venture agreement with a $2 company, Pinmore Pty. Ltd., run by a man who just happens to have been a former personal assistant of the Premier and a member of the Liberal Party's State executive. I also mention that one of the partners in Pinmore Pty. Ltd. is a member of the Labor Party and stood as a Labor candidate.

That company received the contract despite competition from 54 other developers, some of whom had expertise and experience which even honorable members on the other side of the House could not deny. Nonetheless, the Minister chose to give the contract to the two gentlemen involved in the $2 company, who were without the experience and resources of many of the other 54 people who tendered for the particular development.

The Minister made the decision in a flash, saying, in effect, "Never mind about the other 54; we will take Peter Stirling. His firm will do us." No criteria were used for deciding who should get the contract. There was no consideration of expertise or resources. In other words, the people involved had an "in" with the Government and that " in " enabled them


to be the favoured ones. The Government ought to examine its record in these areas.

Today the company is finding the cost of headworks and the servicing of the capital involved a great burden and there is no guarantee that it will be able to continue the development on behalf of the Government.

Mr. HA YES: That is not true. Mr. WILKES: How does the Min

ister know it is not true? After what he said in his Ministerial statement one could be excused for believing that he does not know. There is no guarantee that Pinmore Pty. Ltd. will be able to develop the land and we will have to wait and see what the results are.

My colleague, the honorable member for Bundoora, will discuss this matter in far greater detail later, but I once again point out the crucial facts involved. First, the original purchase ~as recommended by the then Minlster of Housing, Mr. Dickie, and approved by the Treasurer, Mr. Hamer, notwithstanding the obvious irregularities that existed. Secondly, the Government paid a grossly inflated price for land which one of its own expert authorities had deemed to be totally unsuitable for development. Thirdly, the valuation was fortuitously close to what the intermediaries required, which is explained as a coincidence. Fourthly, I am sure I do not have to explain who the real estate agents were; they were Messrs. Dillon and Inkster.

I can add several additional basic facts about this sordid affair: The present Minister of Housing, Mr. Hayes, appears in the cast of characters as the Minister responsible for the Pinmore deal. There are other new elements in that another real estate agency, Moore Williams & Co., and another developer, Mr. McGregor Kean, are involved in the transactions.

Now we come to Melton, and Melton is probably the most revealing of all the deals. Between December, 1973, and January, 1974, a company called Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd.,

the directors of which included Mr. Colin Cooke and Mr. Peter John Leake, bought up parcels of land in West Melton near Bullman's Road.

Mr. HA YES: We read this in the press in 1974.

Mr. WILKES: That may be so but I wish to put it on the record now so that no one can dispute the facts or so that if there is disputation that disputation can occur here and can be settled here.

That parcel of land was being acquired for Welmac Pty. Ltd., a company formed by Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd.-which no longer exists-and the Lewis Land Corporation Ltd. Welmac Pty. Ltd. acquired the land, 1,263 acres in all, for $1·8 million and less than 18 months later sold it to the Housing Commission for $4,675,875-not a bad profit in 18 months! One can well understand why these gentlemen and their supporters would be interested in buying land.

In one case in Melton a 236-acre farm owned by the Robinson family was sold to Welmac Pty. Ltd. for $450,000. A week later Welmac Pty. Ltd. sold it to the Housing Commission at a profit of 94·16 per cent. The Minister of Housing and the Treasurer, who is responsible for every dollar spent by the State, saw all this and were prepared to put their signatures to it. If any honorable member asked questions about this matter he was told it was simply a coincidence. That was the only satisfaction the people of Victoria were given concerning the whole affair. If a company made a profit of 94· 16 per cent in a week it was explained away as a mere coincidence.

I said earlier that the rate of increase in land prices between 1973 and 1975 was 58 per cent, which seemed enormous, but it was relatively inSignificant when compared with 94 per cent in seven days.

That is an incredible situation, to say the least of it. We ought to look once again at the crucial facts behind


this. First, the Housing Commission bought land-it was the sucker again -at a price grossly inflated in a short space of time. Secondly, the Minister of Housing who made the recommendations was the present Chief Secretary, Mr. Dickie, and the Treasurer who signed the note was the Premier, Mr. Hamer, again notwithstanding those obvious irregularities. Any back-bench member of the Liberal Party would have noticed the irregularities and would have done something about them. Thirdly, the valuation was fortuitously close to what the intermediaries wanted. Fourthly, the estate agent was again Dillon and Inkster.

There are other facts, of course. The then Minister for Planning, Mr. Hunt, joined the cast at this stage, and a prominent Liberal Party member and an active Liberal Party campaigner also became involved. I will analyse this deal in more detail shortly, because the full details demonstrate the complicity and guilt of various Ministers.

The basic facts that emerge from these three sordid deals are simply these: First, the Government squandered millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on land, buying it at inflated prices, even though much of the land was totally unsuitable for development and recommended by its own departments to be unsuitable in two instances for redevelopment. Secondly, the deals were recommended by the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Dickie, and approved by the Treasurer-notwithstanding the obvious irregularities I outlined.

Thirdly, valuations were fortuitously close to what the intermediaries involved wanted. Fourthly, the estate agent in each of the three cases was Dillon and Inkster.

Now, as on another occasion, the Government may wish to explain all this as a coincidence. The former Minister of Housing, Mr. Dickie, explained the Melton deal in precisely that way when asked why it was merely a coincidence. I suppose outside the pages of Dickens, coincidence

Mr. Wilkes.

tends not to play such a large part in events, although the Dickens novel which depends so much on "coincidence" is appropriately enough called Great Expectations. There is no doubt that some developers, and some members of this Government certainly had great expectations.

That was not the only explanation which the Government gave. In the A ustralian of 23rd August, 1977, there appeared an article which seems to be an extract from the minute book for the Government party's meetings. The Chief Secretary said that there was nothing wrong with developers making a profit, notwithstanding that earlier he was on the record prior to the 1976 election and prior to the 1973 election as saying that the Government's policy was to buy cheap land and to be able to sell cheap land to home buyers in this State. On this occasion the Minister said that there was nothing wrong with developers making a profit and anyone who dared to say that developers were not entitled to make this exorbitant profit which I have outlined was a Socialist!

Similarly, a variety of explanations has been used to explain away the obvious irregularities which occurred in these three deals. As has been seen, the then Minister of Housing said that the Pakenham deal was one which the Housing Commission could not afford to pass up. According to the honorable gentleman, it was "a ripper". Of the same deal, the Premier said in a press release on 9th May, 1975-

It has always been understood by the Housing Commission that no further urban development should take place in the whole of the Pakenham area. I ask the Premier to indicate which of those statements is true. It hardly sounds to a reasonable person that such a deal was one that could not be passed up, particularly because of what we have been able to find out about the Pakenham land.

Another more recent explanation is that the Housing Commission was building up a land bank to moderate price increases. How can price increases be moderated when the land


is being bought at a price which yields a profit in excess of 94 per cent in seven days? At the same time, the Government is saying-and this is where the hyprocrisy comes in-that it is buying up these large tracts of land through the Housing Commission to prevent price increases. The incredible fact is that not one house has been built on this land. The Minister does not seem to be concerned about that. The land has not been subdivided or rezoned and the price paid has added to the price spiral. Therefore, its usefulness as a market force seems to be very limited indeed.

The Government's own statements and its action prove that none of these explanations are valid. If they were, there would have been some explanation by the Minister in his Ministerial statement. He carefully avoided any reference to the detail concerning the deals at Melton, Pakenham and Sunbury.

The Minister mentioned compulsory acquisition. In regard to opposition to compulsory acquisition, the emptiness of the Minister's claim is shown by the Housing Commission's actual practices. During the 1950s and 1960s the commission laid waste to vast tracts of land in Fitzroy and other inner-suburban areas by compulsorily acquiring houses and land. It was done by a Government before in 1955. The Cain Government compulsorily acquired houses and land for the Housing Commission in the Preston area and in Broadmeadows, and this Government compulsorily acquired land in Broadmeadows.

Mr. JONES: The Country Roads Board is doing it now.

Mr. WILKES: Of course it is. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that there is something strange about the Housing Commission using its powers of compulsory acquisition. However undesirable it might be in certain cases to use the power of compulsory acquisition, it can never be said that

the Housing Commission has not adopted this as its poHcy in the past. Of course it has.

As recently as 1973-at the very beginning of this whole affair-the Government reaffirmed its position by passing the Development Areas Act. The Government has never actually used this Act and in March this year, Melton's designation ran out with not a whisper from the Minister or any member of the Government about the fact that not a single square foot of land had been acquired under it.

The then Minister for Planning, Mr. Hunt, publicly stated that the Government would use the Act when "the investigation areas" were proclaimed. Why did he not use it in these cases? He could have saved the State millions by using this Act. He could have saved the exorbitant price that was paid under the noses of these Ministers and with their approval.

In relation to the suggestion that a land bank was being established, I quote from an editorial in the Age of 20th August, 1977, which sums up this argument.

The Housing Commission used much of this extra money neither to build houses or flats fOf the needy nOf to develop building blocks for home buyers. Significantly, the Housing Minister at the time, Mr. Vance Dickie, was a foremost opponent of the Whitlam Government's plan to channel funds into urban land councils to acquire rural land to hold down residential land prices. He afglled that the HOUSing Commission could fulfil such a role.

This might have been justifiable if the commission had acquired land at reasonable prices. But its main buying spree was during the land boom when land was s~rce and prices were high. The extraordinary circumstances in which it bought rural land, not from the original owners but frol!1 finance companies and developers, at resIdential prices are now, at last, to be the subject of a public inquiry by a retired Supreme Court judge, Sir Gregory Gowans. Not only did the commission pay what appears to have been excessive prices, but some of its acquisitions were not even suitable for housing. This editorial magnificently sums up the role of the then Minister of Housing. Under the cloak of a spurious


ideology, the honorable gentleman and the Government embarked on a secret enterprise designed to rob the people of Victoria and to force up the price of land. There is no disputing the actions of the Minister. He is responsible for the high cost of land in Victoria today. If honorable members wish to make a comparison, as has been suggested time and again, they should consider the situation in South Australia which is so much better than that in this State.

The real explanation for this affair lies in three documents and a detailed analysis of the Melton deal. In the Government's own files and in the files at the Corporate Affairs Office and the Titles Office, the truth resides.

The relevant documents are the memorandum prepared within the Housing Commission following the Cabinet's decision to purchase large tracts of land; the memorandum from the valuer in the Sunbury case; and the memorandum authorizing the purchase at Sunbury.

First, Cabinet approval had to be obtained. According to the Housing Commission file, a conference was held at the commission's offices on 17th July, 1973. Those present were the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Dickie, the then Chairman of the Housing Commission, Mr. Gaskin, the Secretary, Mr. Bohn, and the Property Control Manager, Mr. W. Creighton.

I quote from an extract from the file-

The Minister stated that the day before the Cabinet had decided to purchase large acreages of land in Pakenham, Sunbury, Melton and Kilmore and that the priorities were: First-Sunbury; second-Pakenham; third-Melton; and fourth-Kilmore. The memorandum goes on-

lt was estimated that acreages in the neighbourhood of 1000 acres would be appropriate.

With regard to each of these towns, the Minister made the following comments:

"1. Sunbury-The Housing Commission was free to purchase land presently owned by Lensworth Finance presently zoned as • General Farming '."

Mr. Wilkes.

The Valuer-General's Department then valued the land assuming " prior knowledge of residential zoning" . Dillon and Inkster were appointed agents for Lensworth Finance Ltd. the very day before this occurred. More importantly, the land was not at this stage actually owned by Lensworth. The company had only options on it. The valuation was based not on the option price, but on the price wanted by the intermediaries.

There are the irregularities. Why have they not been explained? The memorandum goes on to discuss Pakenham, authorizing development east of Toomuc Creek, the source of the flooding in the area in 1934 and 1971. It then says-

3. Melton-Development by Housing Commission should be to the west of that town.

The Cabinet and the Minister directed the commission to look at land in the very area where a prominent member of the Liberal Party was at that time putting together a large parcel of land which was ultimately sold to the commission at a huge profit just days before the first step to freeze the price of the land.

The memorandum then refers to Kilmore. No specific direction was given. Presumably none of Cabinet's friends looked like acquiring land in that area.

Mr. SIMPSON: We had an interesting telephone call today. It has been checked.

Mr. WILKES: My colleague has pointed out that not even Kilmore has escaped the dragnet of the Liberal Party's developers and profiteers. The memorandum concludes with the statement-

The Minister advised that his colleague the Minister for Planning, Mr. Hunt, was enthusiastic about the proposal.

I wager that he was. The Parliament should know why the Minister was enthusiastic about the proposal. Perhaps, God willing, the honorable

Ministerial [6 S~PTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9111

gentleman will be given an opportunity to explain why he was enthusiastic about it. At that time many of his political associates were also enthusiastic about the proposal.

I now turn to the case of the missing instruction. There is also on the Housing Commission file a memorandum from L. J. O'Bree, Fellow of the Commonwealth Institute of Valuers (Inc.), a valuer, to the property control manager of the Housing Commission. I suppose he was seconded by the commission from the Valuer-Generars Department. I cannot state that authoritatively but I presume that was the case and that the valuers were operating right on the front doorstep of the Housing Commission. That memorandum has been much discussed, so I shall just quote the most infamous section of it. It states-

The reasonable value of the land as at 30th July, 1973 would be (including the prior knowledge of the land being zoned residential) $3,585,750. The memorandum starts with the words "pursuant to your instructions ". Pursuant to whose instructions is it? I cannot find that out. Nobody seems to know.

Mr. Ross-EnWARDs: The inquiry should reveal the answer.

Mr. WILKES: I hope it does. I have every confidence in the inquiry and in the inquisitor. I am certain that a man of his calibre will be able to find out who issued that instruction.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS: That is the key.

Mr. WILKES: It is the key. It appeared on the file. The Minister says, "That is why a police inquiry was called for."

Mr. Hayes: I did not say that. Straighten yourself out.

Mr. WILKES: The Minister was reported to have said that was one of the reasons which prompted him to do precisely what he did. Obviously it was not the instruction of this Minister. He was concerned about the phrase " pursuant to your instructions ", and there appears to be a

blank in the sequence of the file. By whom were these instructions issued? It will be interesting to find that out, and if some members of the Liberal Party had taken the trouble to examine the file, perhaps they would have been slightly concerned about who issued that instruction. There is no memorandum, no minute, nothingjust this reference to " instructions".

The Premier and the Valuer-General claim that land is always valued at residential prices when it is going to be acquired, a view which is, to say the least, a little original. No valuer I have spoken to takes such a view. Indeed, if valuers did, the entire municipal rating system would collapse.

I am surprised that the ValuerGeneral said that, if he did-and I am not absolutely certain that he said it; I know the Premier said it but I should certainly have expected the Valuer-General to dissociate himself from the concept that has been adopted by the Premier. Imagine valuers going around and valuing land on the basis of what they think it might be used for!

Mr. BILLING: That is what council valuers are doing.

Mr. WILKES: Council valuers do not value land on the basis of what they think it might be used for; that is not the criterion used. The criterion is what the land will be used for, and it is quite obvious that someone gave the order that the land be valued as it was. I hope the inquiry discovers who issued the instruction. There is only one man who had the authority to issue such an instruction -the then Minister of Housing.

I refer now to the last document, the actual approval of the purchase. Let us recapitulate on what has happened. Three of the common factors apply in this case-The Government bought land at a grossly inflated price; it operated through one real estate agency, Dillon and Inkster Real Estate Pty. Ltd., and did so after a dubious valuation procedure.

9HZ Ministerial [ASSEMBLY.] Statement.

All this had happened when on 13th August, 1973, the then Chairman of the Housing Commission, Mr. Gaskin, wrote to the Premier-

In accordance with Cabinet's decision, the Housmg Commission has bought approximately 1,000 acres at Sunbury.

Yours faithfully, G. P. GASKIN.

The other signatures on the letter were, and I quote: "Recommended Vance Dickie" and" approved R. J. Hamer ". Both signatures appeared.

The deal was actually recommended by the then Minister of Housing and approved by the Premier. I suggest that the Minister and the Premier have very few explanations, if any, to offer for their actions in this case, if not in the other case. They may claim that they just signed the documents-in other words, that they did not notice the irregularities.

This brings up the question of Ministerial responsibility. On the facts disclosed, serious irregularities had occurred, and the Minister and the Premier countenanced them by approving and authorizing them. On that basis alone they ought to seriously reconsider their position in this Parliament. There is only one other possible explanation which I need not draw to the attention of either honorable members or the honorable gentlemen involved.

This entire process is somewhat clearer in the MeIton land deals. Of the 1,263 acres bought, an area of 236 acres was a farm owned by William Robinson, William MaxwelI Robinson and Norman Lindsay Robinson of BulIman's Lane, Melton. The Robinsons sold their 236 acres to Welmac Pty. Ltd. for $450,000. The sale was registered on 15th March, 1974.

Welmac Pty. Ltd. bought other properties around the Robinson farm to make up the 1,263 acres package that was ultimately sold to the Housing Commission. Titles Office documents show that the Robinson property was among those bought by the Housing Commission on 22nd March, 1974.

Mr. Wilkes.

The Housing Commission paid Welmac Pty. Ltd. $4,675,875 for the package-$3,702 an acre. Welmac's total profit was $2·8 million. Wherever there has been any deal associated with the Government, approved by the Government, and property bought by the Housing Commission, astron-0mical profits have been made. That means the Housing Commission paid $873,718 for the Robinson property, and Welmac Pty. Ltd. made a profit of $423,718 between the time it acquired the property on 15th March, 1974, and the time it sold it to the Housing Commission on 22nd March, 1974. Honorable members opposite do not believe there is anything irregular about that; they believe a development company should be able to make that profit from taxpayers' money. The profit was of the order of 94· 16 per cent.

The transaction typified the way in which this Government threw around millions of dollars buying land from speculators in 1973 and 1974. On 26th M'arch, 1974, the land was declared an investigation area under the Development Areas Act.

Following that declaration, the Town and Country Planning Board reported on the area, and in March, 1975, the land was declared a designated area under the Development Areas Act. The designation lapsed in March of this year.

Under the Act, the Government could have acquired the land at any time during the period it was " designated" at the price applicable on 26th March, 1974, perhaps plus inflation. If the Housing Commission had waited just four days, it could have negotiated to buy the land at a rural valuation at any time subsequently. Instead it paid $3,702 an acre. Why did it not exercise its prerogative? That question ought to be answered.

The Melton designation was allowed to lapse this year without a single square foot of land being acquired under the Act. Two Ministers have some responsibility in this matter-the then Minister for Planning,

Ministerial [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9113-

the Honorable A. J. Hunt, and the then Minister of Housing, the Honorable V. O. Dickie.

When Cabinet discussed the proposed land purchase and the declaration under the Development Areas Act, one would have expected both the Honorable V. O. Dickie and the Honorable A. J. Hunt to have commented on the obvious contradiction. But, of course, nothing like that occurred, and there is no evidence that there was any intention to take that course of action. Here was one Government department planning to freeze the price of a piece of land while another department was planning to buy it at a massively inflated price. There was no co-operation or discussion between the departments. That is how this Government operates.

It is incredible that the responsible Ministers did not seek to avert the possible loss of public funds when the conflict became obvious.

Evidence to prove this is on the file. The company was asked by the commission to hurry up between the 15th and the 18th March. The then Minister of Housing, the Honorable V. O. Dickie, has described these events as merely a coincidence. This is his explanation and he is sticking to it. Of course, other people want to know the truth. The public is entitled to know why and how this occurred.

Both Ministers should give a full explanation of their actions in this Parliament. What makes an explanation more necessary is the identity of the men who approached the Robinson family. The directors of that company, Nandina Investments, were Peter John Leake and Colin George Cooke. The shareholders were their respective family companies in which the other directors were the two men's wives. Peter John Leake is well known to members opposite. He was once a councillor of the Mornington Shire Council, president of the Mornington branch of the Liberal Party, Chairman of the Western port Regional Planning Authority and

election campaign manager for the' then Minister for Planning, the Honorable A. J. Hunt, in his 1973 election campaign. The Minister for Planning's election campaign manager clinched a massive profit from a sale to the Housing Commission four days before the Minister for Planning took the first step to freeze the price of land. Do you, Mr. Speaker, agree that perhaps an explanation may be required-some simple explanation? We are not asking for anything extraordinary-just a simple explanation why the coincidence existed and why that occurred. The then Minister of Housing has already described these events as a coincidence. No doubt it was once again a coincidence that just happened to convert great expectations into cold, hard profit.

Colin George Cooke is also a gentleman known to members opposite. Mr. Cooke was the head of an organization known as "the friends of Alan Hunt" who campaigned most vigorously for the honorable gentleman in both election campaigns, and during the interminable intra-party war that the Liberals wage in the Westernport area. Everyone knows what happened in the Westernport area. Everyone knows what the honorable member for Westernport was subjected to by members of his own party, including the Ministers. These were the men concerned, but they were able to reap profits for the transactions conspired by this Government. Surely the then Minister for Planning recognized when this assistance was forthcoming that a potential conflict of interest may have existed. We have just seen an example in today's press where the Federal Attorney-General resigned for much less-a matter of principle -but this was not a matter of principle for the then Minister for Planning. Would one not have thought the Minister at the time would have considered that a potential conflict of interest existed? Of course not-a coincidence, not a conflict of interest.


Nandina Investments received about 10 per cent for its part in the deal. A commission was paid to real estate agents, Dillon and Inkster, of about $94,000, despite the fact that a commission was paid to the real estate agents for the vendors.

Mr. HAYES: You should get your facts straight.

Mr. WILKES: Despite the fact that Dillon and Inkster were acting on behalf of the Housing Commission and were paid $94,000 in commission.

Mr. HAYES: Not the commission. Mr. WILKES: Whom were they

acting for? Whom do Dillon and Inkster act for? Do they act for this Government? Do they act for the Housing Commission? Do they act for the seller of the land? Apparently they do, and the Government sees nothing strange, nothing irregular and nothing unethical about that.

The remaInIng sum, nearly a quarter of a million dollars, was divided between Leake, Cooke and a man called Raymond Brian Durston. Mr. Durston, whom we all remember for Pakenham, told his trial court, according to the transcript, that he had engineered the Melton deal. Durston told the court that he had received a consultant's fee for his part in the deal and his agent, none other than Mr. Bob DilIon, had received an agent's commission. I invite the Premier to examine what I have said about these deals and then make the statement to this House that he is still satisfied. I challenge the Premier to do that. Durston also complained that he was being harassed, that he was assaulted, and that he was threatened over the telephone for allegedly revealing what was going on. I invite the Premier to examine that statement.

Graeme Alexander Holden, who was fined $250 for stealing Mr. Harold Weeden's car, told the court that Durston had confided that he was being harassed by someone, and I quote, who "had the politicians in his pocket". It would not be difficult for him, after what the Opposition has revealed today, to get these

politicians in his pocket. He also said, "He probably had the Police Force in his pocket at the same time, so what was the point of contacting the police about the threats." One should remember that this is the land to the west of Melton, the land that the Cabinet directed the commission to look at. Indeed, the then Minister, the present Chief Secretary, ordered the commission to pass by other land being considered in Melton and directed the commission to look at the Nandina Investments land, the land being put together by these two distinguished gentlemen, Mr. Leake and Mr. Cooke, who are well known to the Minister, the Liberal Party and the honorable member for Westernport.

A memorandum on the file stated. . . the Minister has directed that we proceed to investigate area 2 mentioned in the minute with a view to compulsory acquisition-

Apparently the Minister was in favor of compulsory acquisition at some times anyway-but that area I be disregarded. In lieu of Area lA, we are Ita investigate the possibility of acquiring the eastern section of the property owned by Nandina Development. that is the land lying east of Harkness Road.

This memorandum was from Mr. Creighton, the Chief Property Control Manager, to Mr. N. Riach and was dated 9th October, 1973. It was a direction of the Minister. Like everything the Housing Commission has done, it was by direction of the Minister. There is no point in the Minister or the Premier backing off by failing to discover the underlying features of these deals. They are responsible.

On 14th December, 1973, the Housing Commission wrote to the Premier regarding the Melton deal. The Premier inscribed this letter" Approved R. J. Hamer" with his signature and in his own handwriting the words, "On basis not compulsory acquisition". At least that is in line with what the Premier has been saying, but, of course, out of court with the instruction issued. by the Minister.


The then Minister of Housing directed the commission to consider the land parcel being put together by Leake and Cooke and the Premier authorized its purchase-making sure, while authorizing it, that Leake, Cooke and their associates reaped a massive profit. He cannot escape acknowledging that fact because it was in front of him. All he had to do was turn over the page. What happened? In answer to that question, let me suggest that there were five pre-conditions which needed to exist before these developers made these huge profits.

First, the developers needed a real estate agent who could ensure that the Housing Commission would buy the land. There is no doubt that they found such an agent, and they knew it. Secondly, they needed a valuation which would legitimize their outrageous intentions and demands. There is no question that they had that. Thirdly, they needed an appropriate Minister, the Minister of Housing, who would be willing to recommend the deal, notwithstanding the obvious irregularity. Is it only coincidence that they had the right Minister? Fourthly, they needed a State Treasurer who was willing to authorize the expenditure, notwithstanding any irregularity. They had such a Treasurer. Fifthly, they needed to act before the Government used the Development Areas Act to prevent such profits being madeand they certainly acted.

The developers found their real estate agent and they obtained their valuations. The Minister of Housing was willing, just as the Premier and Treasurer was willing. The developers also managed to act before the relevant proclamation of the Development Areas Act, and so they were in business. Indeed, one could say that they found that all the necessary preconditions existed, just as other developers in Keilor, Sunshine, AItona, Albury, Wodonga, St. Albans and Ballarat found that such preconditions existed in their deals.

Let us not forget that Sunbury, Melton and Pakenham were just three examples of the wild buying sprees which the Go'Vernment embarked upon. The other developments must wait for another time.

The over-all impact of all these activities was that the public purse was plundered for the benefit of a few sleazy operators. Money that could have gone towards buying more land or towards providing young couples with much-needed houses found its way instead into the pockets of speculators and profiteers.

The developers opened the door to this Government without any difficulty whatsoever. At the same time, instead of dampening down prices for land, the Government by its activities stimulated the land price spiral. By handing out exorbitant profits to developers, the Government was actively supporting the land boom which took land out of the reach of young people. Any young couple who cannot afford to buy a home in this State today should know that one of the major reasons they cannot is the Government's land dealings.

Honorable members are entitled to ask what a responsible and prudent Government should have done. I have not heard any such suggestion made by Government party members but, of course, it is quite proper for the Opposition to inform the Parliament what it believes a prudent Government should have done in these cases.

Firstly, it might have followed the advice of the Opposition which, during the relevant period, consistently provided suggestions on how the price ,of land and homes could have been moderated. Secondly, the Government might have acted in a manner consistent with what is expected of Governments and carefully supervised and scrutinized the expenditure of the public funds involved. One would have expected such action by any prudent Government.


In terms of specific policies, any of the following suggestions would have avoided this mess and, if applied today, would still be able to provide lower cost housing and land for young couples-

1. Reserving development rights as recommended by the Else-Mitchell Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures.

2. The retention by the Crown of the increments in value resulting from changes in land use thereby eliminating the speculators and unearned gains made at taxpayers' expense.

3. The establishment of a land bank which works as the South Australian Land Commission works today.

4. The use of the State Bank to provide long-term repayment finance and low-interest loans.

5. Special grants and low-interest loans for home buyers.

6. The imposition of a betterment tax on all unused serviced land.

7. Public funding for servicing costs on new subdivided blocks with provision for long-term repayment.

MR. KEN NETT: Is this a policy speech?

Mr. WILKES: It is advice to the Government designed to save this State millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds.

8. The prevention of subdivision in reserved living zones while preferred development area land is withheld.

9. The use and enforcement of the Development Areas Act-which this Government dodges around.

10. The use of multiple valuations before land is acquired.

Is there anything wrong with multiple valuations before the land is acquired? This sordid situation would not have existed if that had been the case.

11. A firm policy of buying rural land at rural valuations.

What was wrong with purchasing land at rural valuations?

But what did the Government do? It did not change course; it bought more and more land and took more and more action to cover up what it was doing. From 1973 to just a month ago, the Government consistently refused Opposition requests to be allowed to examine the files on the land deals. It refused requests made by letter and by telephone.

The Premier, the Minister for Local Government, the Chief Secretary and the Minister of Housing, at some point all deliberately obstructed the attempts of the Opposition to get to the truth behind this sordid series of events. I suppose the reasons for their actions are now patently obvious, because in the opinion of the Opposition every one of those honorable gentleman has something very important to hide.

The Chief Secretary is guilty because he was the man personally responsible for the purchases-there is no doubt about that. The Premier is guilty because he was the man who was personally responsible for approving the finance for these deals. The Minister for Local Government is guilty because he could not recognize the massive conflict of interests which was right under his very nose. The Minister of Housing is guilty because he participated in the cover-up. Every single member of the Cabinet who, in the last few months, has witnessed the unfolding of events but who failed to resign in protest or to take any action which was necessary to bring about the resignation of the Cabinet Minister involved, is also guilty.

The National Times recently reported that, a few weeks ago, the the honorable member for Westemport said that the public was beginning to t}1Jnk that the Government was a bunch of crooks. The public has stopped thinking that-it now knows.

The Opposition suggests that the least the Government can do is to provide an explanation of the land deals which the Opposition has attempted to place on record today. I hope that a careful examination of


what the Opposition has put will spur the Government to make a deliberate statement instead of relying on the wasteful attempt by this Minister of Housing to frustrate the Opposition in what it clearly sees as its defined duty to the public of Victoria, the placing of these deals on the record.

The House has witnessed a miserable performance by the Minister of Housing who read a worthless document which purported to be a Ministerial statement but which had nothing to do with, and is not even relevant to, the scandals perpetrated by the Government-the Ministerial statement did not achieve what it set out to achieve.

Members of the Opposition expect a full explanation from the Government about these land deals and the irregularities which have been described by Ministers as mere coincidences. However, Ministers have not recognized the conflict of interest, nor has the Premier and Treasurer had any regard to the implications.

The Parliament and the people of Victoria are entitled to an explanation and I sincerely hope that they will get it. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the National Party): I cannot understand the purpose of the Ministerial statement by the Minister of Housing because it does not tell honorable members anything that they did not know prior to the making of the statement. It is more or less a summingup of what the Housing Commission has done over the years and gives certain explanations of what has happened in recent times. None of the material is new. The Minister merely gave a summary, from his point of view, of what has happened in the distant past and more recently. Frankly, I cannot see any practical reason why the Minister has done that.

The statement does not answer any of the recent criticisms. I have the highest personal regard for the Minister of Housing, whom I have known since he first became a mem-

ber of this House ten years ago. The honorable gentleman has some accusations to answer during the course of the inquiry, as do many other people, and I am prepared to wait to see what answers the inquiry brings forth in due course.

Nobody questions that the Housing Commission has achieved a great deal in assisting decentralization and housing low-income families in Victoria. I agree with the Minister that, without the Housing Commission, it is hard to imagine what would be the housing position in Victoria today. In Shepparton there are 1,400 commission homes today and, if these were taken away, Shepparton would be a very much smaller place. The Housing Commission came into existence for that very purpose. Perhaps it does not do us any harm to look back at what has been done by the commission over the years.

As to the criticisms of what has gone on, I am sure that the Minister and other members of the Government appreciate that neither I nor other members of the National Party have been quick to make accusations. We have been very disturbed and troubled by some of the accusations that have been made, but the proper place for them to be sorted out and for counter accusations to be made and answers given is before the board of inquiry, which is hearing evidence at present. I am hopeful that the answers will come from that inquiry.

However, the Minister has seen fit, and therefore the Government has seen fit, to open up this issue in Parliament. I question the judgment of the Minister and the Government in doing so because, inevitably, it must cut across the work of the board of inquiry. It is difficult to discuss the Housing Commission in detail and not debate some of the matters which are presently being inquired into. The Minister has touched on that subject. I would hesitate to bring these matters up in the House had not the matter been opened up by the


Government. The Government has seen fit to do this, and therefore I shall make certain comments.

The Minister has stated that the reason for the inquiry was his concern about the results of a police investigation, an investigation which he called for. Accordingly, the honorable gentleman recommended that an inquiry should be undertaken. I think that is a fair statement.

Earlier today in reply to a question without notice the Minister stated that no other Minister was aware of the contents of the police report. Later, I should like the honorable gentleman to make it clear that his statement includes the Chief Secretary, because I find it ~ard to believe that the police carned out an inquiry and that the Minister in charge of the police has not seen the report. It is probably unnecessary for me to add that the present Chief Secretary was the ~ini~ter o~ Housing during the perIOd In WhIch the events being inquired into occurred.

In the short time that the board of inquiry has been sitting! certain di~turbing matters have arIsen. One IS why Dalgetys Real Estate (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. should suddenly share its commission with another firm. On the evidence given before the board of inquiry yesterday, no explanation w~s given why that company should spItt its $28,000 commission down the line.

Another matter of concern is the valuation of broad acres or, as the Minister referred to it today, broad hectares. The Minister's description is rather a mouthful so I will continue to call it broad acres. The matter of concern is that the land was valued for residential purposes rather than rural purposes. It has been stated that the Sunbury land is still defined as general farming land even now, although it was valued as residential land. Section lIB (2) of the Lands Compensation Act provides-In determining the market value of any land for the purposes of this Act any change in the value of the property caused by publication by or on behalf of the Crown or any public statutory authority of any

Mr. Ross-Edwards.

notice or statement relating to the proposal to investigate or to carry out th~ works or undertakings prior to the servIce of the notice to treat shall be disregarded. Opinions seem to vary, but. it seems incredible that if the HOUSIng Commission is going to buy land for use in 3 5 or 10 years, which includes som~ of the land which has been bought in the deals referred to-it has not been bought for now or next year-it 'must pay residential prices. It would be better to set up another Government authority to purchase rural land if the Housing Commission cannot purchase land at rural prices.

I have perhaps commented enough on the matters before the board of inquiry. I do not want to press on because, as I said before, the right and proper attitude to adopt is that the board of inquiry has been established and if I am not satisfied with the activities of the board of inquiry during the course of its proceedings or with its findings, like every honorable member, I have the right to raise the matter in Parliament.

Mr. SIMPSON: But the Minister should appear before the board of inquiry.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS: If the Minister does not appear at the board of inquiry, he should resign, but I haye enough confidence in both the Mmister of Housing and the Chief Secretary to know that if they are called upon they will appear. I sincerely hope that a Vapold situation does not apply again.

I have said enough about the board of inquiry and I turn now to the question of what confidence the National Party has in the Government's policy of developing the so-called satellite cities. The National Party has no confidence in the Govern~ ment's policy to develop satellite towns at Melton, Sunbury, Pakenham, Mount Ridley and other areas because this would be merely adding to the metropolitan sprawl. To call them satellite towns is ridiculous when they are only tacked on to the edge of Melbourne. It is merely establishing a Greater Melbourne-a Melbourne unlimited.

Ministerial [6 S~PTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9119

When the proposal was announced, the National Party opposed it. It also opposed this policy at the State elections in 1973, and it has continued to oppose it ever since. It is a contradiction of the first paragraph on page 2 of the Ministerial statement, which says-

The bighest priority was to be given to housing needs in all country towns and the operations of the Housing Commission were to be scaled down within greater Melbourne and no further Housing Commission high-rise flats for family units were to be built. There are to be no high-rise flats but houses unlimited are to be built on thousands of acres on the surrounds of Melbourne. If the Government is sincere about decentralization it will try to limit the size of Melbourne, but if it is hell-bent on encouraging homes on the edge of Melbourne its decentralization policy loses its meaning.

Mr. GINIFER: What do you expect from a city-based Liberal Government?

Mr. ROSS-EDW ARDS: It is not a case of seats for any party. We must decide as a Parliament what is best for Victoria. No one will challenge the fact that it is undesirable for Melbourne to continue to grow as it has been growing over the past ten or fifteen years. It is not in the best interests of the State.

Mr. RAMSAY: What are the figures? Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS: The hon

orable member for Gisborne represents a city electorate but the honorable member for Balwyn wants to know the figures. I will quote them. In all fairness, the metropolitan boundaries have been changed twice, in 1964 and 1974. In June, 1955, the Housing Commission's figures were 41 ·5 per cent for the country and 58·5 per cent for the city. In June, 1976, the country percentage had dropped to 37· 5 per cent. The figure for the city had increased to 62·5 per cent. More houses have beert built but the country percentage has consistently gone down' in this period.

The Minister made the relevant statement that the commission has

never received criticism for buying land in the regional centres. That is true because it makes sense to buy land in advance in regional centres. If the Housing Commission has received any criticism it is that it has not bought enough land in regional centres. I suggest that it shOUld dispose of the land it has bought on the outskirts of Melbourne and concentrate its efforts on the 30-odd regional centres in Victoria which are capable of growth and which need encouragement.

On many occasions I have asked the Government-and I ask it again tonight-to choose one centre in Victoria which is growing and build houses in advance of demand. It could not embarrass the Government to build a little ahead of dem·and and ascertain what effect that has on the centre, whether Ballarat, Bendigo, Sale, Wangaratta, Echuca or any other regional centre. I do not ca,re which one it selects. There are no empty houses in those 30 regional centres in Victoria.

Mr. GUY: How can you build ahead of demand?

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS: People wait two years for a two-bedroom house. How can someone who is married with a child wait two years for a house? The honorable member for Gisborne should realize that. If the Government had a little vision it would select one centre and build a little ahead of demand and ascertain the result. It would be an excellent result because industry would go to that centre if it could get housing. However, no houses are available in regional centres. The honorable member for Gisborne would not know, but if a skilled man from Melbourne is required in one of these centres he cannot be provided with a house. Honorable members representing a regional centre such as Ballarat would give their right arm to get more houses for their gteat city.

The Housing Commission is in a unique position when it comes to buying land. I refer particularly' to re .. gional centres~ The commission'has a "wide choice' of, good land. ' . It, :can


adopt a take-it-or-Ieave-it attitude. It can make an offer and walk away from it. It is a cash buyer which does not want possession next month or next year. It can wait a year or two. It can leave the vendor in his home. It can take possession in, say, twelve months and lease the house back for a year or two. I cannot imagine any purchaser in the State who can give the terms and conditions that the commission can give and yet it seems to pay more tha~ anyone else. A cash buyer in a regional centre today is in a strong position.

As I said before, I cannot see the point of the Ministerial statement. Perhaps it was intended to head off an Opposition motion; that may have been the tactics behind it. Surely if the Government has nothing to be ashamed of it would be wise to let the Opposition hop into it and then answer it. A Ministerial statement that tells honorable members nothing they do not know puts the Government in a weak position. The National Party intends to support the Opposition's amendment. It has no confidence in the policy of the Government when it comes to building houses.

Apart from what mayor may not have been dubious about the purchases at Melton, Sunbury and Pakenham-and I will leave that decision to the board of inquiry-members of the National Party are puzzled that the Government is buying land that should be left as open space to provide a bit of fresh air for this concrete jungle of Melbourne. The Housing Commission should be concentrating its efforts north of the Great Divide, more than 50 miles from Melbourne, to build a State and not merely a city.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): For more than two hours honorable members have listened to the Leader of the Opposition reading the Australian Labor Party's submission to the board of inquiry, and a very confused and misleading submission and statement it is. Indeed, if it sheds any light which will be of any

use to the board of inquiry, I shall·be most surprised. It mixes up all sorts of concepts: It mixes up sales with transfers; it mixes up options with purchases; and it mixes up profits with values. It mixes all these concepts and tries, by a series of innuendos and false inferences, to build up a case.

Mr. WILTON: What false inferences?

Mr. HAMER: I can assure the honorable member for Broadmeadows that they will be obvious when the time comes. By this means the Opposition seeks to build up a case about these land purchases and it is, therefore, a very good thing that there is a board of inquiry which can bring out the facts.

What the Government desires and what it insists on is that the facts be made plain. Members of the Government are sick of innuendos and sick of people who are connected with the Liberal Party being automatically regarded as in some way corrupt. It is apparently assumed to be quite wrong to make any kind of profit at any time.

The crux of this inquiry and, indeed, the crux of the whole matter, will turn out to be the valuation of the land. The question will be, " What is the fair and proper price to be paid for land purchased by the Housing Commission? " The Housing Commission has an obligation to pay a fair and reasonable price for the land it acquires. In doing so it relies, and must rely, on valuations by the bestinformed person and group in this State, namely, the Valuer-General and his officers. The Valuer-General has available to him the best information in Victoria. It is far better than that available to any other valuer. He knows the prices being paid for all properties. He is in a better position than anyone else to arrive at a fair and reasonable valuation.

If there has been any irregularity -and in spite of the innuendos and insinuations from across the Chamber I know of none-the Government wants to know about it, and if any

Ministerial [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statencent. 9121

action should be taken the Government intends to take it. In the confused and highly misleading situation which has been created it is a very good thing that there is a board of inquiry under an eminent president who will bring the facts to light and the Government will abide by the facts, whatever they are.

I shall now deal with one matter which was raised by the Leader of the National Party. The honorable member supported the amendment on one ground, apparently; namely, that the National Party sees something wrong with the policy of the Government because of the areas in which it is acquiring land. The Leader of the National Party has completely misunderstood the purpose of the satellite towns. The Government has already given priority to, as the figures quoted by the Leader of the National Party indicate, and shown a strong bias in favour of, Housing Commission building in country centres, and it intends to increase that bias. As the Ministerial statement shows, this year there will be a heavy preponderance of houses built in country centres-60 per cent will be built in country areas and only 40 per cent in the metropolitan area.

Many people, for various reasons, either want or have to live in the metropolitan area and the Government does not intend to abandon them. It is irresponsible for the National Party to suggest that the Government should simply stop all building in the metropolitan area and build everything in the country.

I shall now deal with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable member spent a long time talking about the situation of the housing industry in Victoria. Here, at least, we can agree that since about March of this year there has been a decline in the number of new houses started in Victoria. However, 1976 was a very good year and Victoria then led the rest of Australia in housing and by and large the building industry was operating at almost full capacity, approximately

Session 1977.-316

95 per cent. Since March the number of houses started has declined in every State in Australia.

It is instructive-and the Leader of the Opposition did not go into this-to reflect upon why this is so. lt can be attributed to four reasons, two of which stem from the policies of the previous Federal Labor Government. The first reason, and it imposes the most crippling burden which deters young homeowners, in particular, from buying new houses, is simply the interest rate. No honorable member opposite will dispute that, and it is a product and a result of the high inflation we have inherited since 1974 and 1975. Until the interest rates are lowered we cannot expect many of the people who would otherwise be able to purchase their homes to enter into contracts.

The first thing we all ought to be aiming at is to bring down the interest rates, and the first step in doing that is to bring down the rate of inflation. Thank God the present Federal Government, to its credit, has brought the rate of inflation down and has created the conditions under which it is now possible to bring down interest rates. I predict that this year they will come down, and that will be the best possible stimulus for the housing industry here' or anywhere else in Australia.

The second reason is simply the inflation which has taken place in housing costs. Here again we are still feeling the effects of the tragic year 1974, when the average male wage rose by 34 per cent and the average female wage rose by 40 per cent in one year. That is the legacy that has been inherited and which has been reflected in costs in the building industry. In fact, it is rather worse in that industry than in some others. The cost of building a home has gone through the ceiling, so to speak, and is a prime cause of the problems facing potential homeowners.

The third reason is a restriction in bank lending which was imposed in January of this year. That is not


attributable in any way to the previous Federal Labor Government, but the restriction in any case has, I am glad to say, been corrected and there has been an upturn in the number of homes started in Victoria last month. I hope this trend continues.

When discussing the situation of the housing industry in Victoria, honorable members ought to analyse the position properly and determine what the real causes of the present problems are and how they can be overcome.

I have been speaking mainly of the private sector of housing, but if we turn to welfare housing we can find another reason why the building industry has gone into a decline. For four successive years the amount of money available for welfare housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has been the same in money terms and the cost of building houses has gone up. In other words, the amount of welfare housing being built has declined.

I am glad to say that this year the Federal Liberal Government has provided a little more-a few million dollars more-which will be put to good effect by the Housing Commission. It is important to analyse those things when we talk about the Housing Commission of Victoria because the Leader of the Opposition made no attempt to get at the real causes of the problem. If we do not know the causes, we cannot get the answers.

Mr. WILKES: What about the timber industry?

Mr. HAMER: The Leader of the Opposition might be interested to know that the two reasons the timber industry gives for its problems are, first of all, competition from interstate, especially from New South Wales because of the low level of housing construction in that state.

The second reason is the competition from imports. If that is taken a little further it will be found that the cost structure in our own industry has exceeded those of New Zealand and other places. Let us make the position

quite plain. Until inflation is under control, the housing industry will be one of the worst affected, and the result of bringing inflation under control will be a vast improvement in the housing situation. I believe there have been signs, even in the past few weeks, that recovery is under way, and the Government intends to boost it.

I want to pass to the Ministerial statement for a minute because I believe it is important to understand the background to these transactions and why the Housing Commission acted as it did in order to implement Government policies. It is a firm policy of the Government to restrain the growth of Melbourne and to promote the growth of country centres.

Mr. FORDHAM: It has not worked. Mr. HAMER: It is working. The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should cease interjecting. In his position in this Chamber he ,should be setting an example to other honorable members.

Mr. HAMER: When the honorable member returns to his seat he might study the facts and figures instead of interjecting in that foolish way. He will find that the growth of Melbourne in the past five years was O' 8 per cent a year, the lowest growth rate Melbourne has ever had. It is well below the average growth rate for the whole of Victoria and far behind that of many country centres. Geelong has three times the growth rate of Melbourne. Albury-Wodonga, Sale, Shepparton and Ballarat--

Mr. WHITING: How are you restricting the growth of Melbourne?

Mr. HAMER: We are restricting the growth of Melbourne by encouraging the growth of other centres by the best and most comprehensive set of financial incentives that operate anywhere in Australia for the setting up of industry in the country, by decentralization of Government authorities, by support through the Victorian Development Corporation, and in many other ways of which the

M inisteriai [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9123

honorable member is well aware. He has mentioned them many times himself.

Mr. B. J. EVANS: You have done that at the expense of the countryside.

Mr. HAMER: I will leave the honorable member to state what he means by decentralization. I 'mean restraining the growth of the metropolis and encouraging the growth of country centres. This is what the Government has set out to do.

The Government also set out as a second leg of policy to try to balance what growth there was in Melbourne. As everyone knows, Melbourne has been growing to the south and east and it is part of a policy adopted in 1968 that the Government would try to restrain the growth of Melbourne in a southerly and easterly direction and encourage it in a northerly and westerly direction. There is nothing new about that. That is why Melton and Sunbury were selected as satellite towns. The Government has been consistent in that policy throughout. If the Opposition wants a good reason why the Housing Commission should be buying land in Melton and Sunbury, it is that. These are satellite towns-determined as long ago as 196B-in which the Government wants the Housing Commission to play ,some part to help carry out a firm and successful policy in those areas.

The third leg, so to speak, in this policy was to intensify the role of the Housing Commission in providing for low-income families.

Mr. WILKES: You said that in your policy speech.

Mr. HAMER: That is right, and that was one good reason why the building of high-rise flats in the inner suburbs of Melbourne has been abandoned. No more high-rise flats are being built and the Housing Commission has concentrated on building villas for families. The Government believes the place to build them and to carry out the policy I mentioned, is in the satellite towns, such as Pakenham, Melton, Sunbury, Kilmore and the

like. Unless this is understood, the actions of the Housing Commission are less readily explained. If that policy is to be carried out, plenty of land must be bought well ahead of construction. I am surprised there should be any question of that because the last time there was a Labor Government in this State, that is precisely what it did. The methods it adopted were completely reprehensible. The land was acquired by compulsion and the amount paid for land was a real disgrace.

Mr. WILKES: The Labor Government got value for the land.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): The Leader of the Opposition has made his contribution to the debate and took some two hours to do it. I ask that he listen in silence.

Mr. HAMER: If getting value for money means taking land from people compulsorily without paying a fair and reasonable price, the Government will have nothing of it.

The fourth principle was that the Government was quite determined, in the face at that time of opposition from the Federal Labor Government, to persist with the policy of encouraging people, particularly Housing Commission tenants, to buy their own homes. ~he Government therefore reduced the required deposit to nil, gave easy terms to the tenants of Housing Commission homes, and persisted with its policy of selling half of all the houses constructed. Tha t was absolutely vital because this was part of the Government's plans for the three satellite centres.

The fifth principle was that the Government wanted to avoid and overcome the segregation that had occurred in Housing Commission areas, and provide what has been called in the Ministerial statement, "a social mix". The Government wanted to arrange, if it could, a range of incomes and experience, a range of professional and semiprofessional people, and blue and white collar workers in these areas. If a policy of that type is to be


adopted, the land required must be extensive because it will be divided roughly three ways. One third will be used for low-income earners to own homes; one third will be used for middle-income earners who were not eligible but who required cheap land; and one third will be available to builders to build for people who like to buy their homes in a package deal. Therefore, large tracts of land are required.

I am explaining for the benefit of the House-some members are not able to understand-why the Housing Commission, in carrying out these policies, bought large tracts of land in these places. The final principle the Government adopted was to bring private enterprise into the provision of homes for the people, because, as many members have pointed out already, there is and always will be, unless the Government takes some action of this type, a lag in welfare housing. There will be delays and queues of people waiting. The way to overcome that is to bring in private enterprise capital on proper terms and to have private enterprise as well as the Government build houses for the people. The Government intends to do that. It is our policy and I believe it to be a proper policy. I notice that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nods his head in approval.

I remind the House that the Housing Commission is the biggest land buyer in this State. It has built 84,000 homes. One family in twelve in Victoria is housed in a Housing Commission home. The commission has sold 44,000 homes, many of which are still being paid off. In all the transactions and purchases of land that have taken place certain principles have been followed. The Housing Commission has not fn other cases come in for the sort of criticism that is being levelled at these three large purchases because it has followed a consistent pattern.

The commission follows certain well-tried principles, the correctness of which is indisputable. It offers a fair and reasonable price for

Mr. Hamer.

the land it acquires; it negotiates for the land that it wants if it possibly can; it uses compulsory acquisition only as a last resort; and it relies in arriving at the price to be paid on an independent valuation by the Valuer-General. Those principles have been adopted time and again.

Mr. ROPER: That is a weak argument.

Mr. HAMER: It is not an argument; it is the truth.

Mr. WILKES: Why did the Government call in the police?

Mr. HAMER: What is the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the other purchase which has been mentioned in the Ministerial statement?

Mr. WILKES: Which other purchase?

Mr. HAMER: The purchase of land at Craigieburn by the former Federal Minister for Housing in the Labor Party Government.

Mr. WILKES: I believe two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. HAMER: I do not suggest that two wrongs make a right; I ask what innuendoes and inferences members of the Labor Party draw from the fact that in the two years between August, 1972, and August, 1974, the price of that land rose by 700 per cent, from $180,000 to $1·4 million. What inferences do members of the Labor Party draw from that? Do they assume that the action taken was proper, that the Federal Labor Government obtained valuations and paid the right price? Is that the inference or not? It is difficult to follow the innuendoes. All the Opposition does is present a set of facts which show that the land purchased by the Housing Commission has gone through several hands and that its value has risen. But exactly the same thing happened in a rather exaggerated way in other cases.

Mr. WILKES: That does not justify this Government's actions.

Mr. HAMER: It is not a justification ; I ask the honorable member to be consistent· If he draws unfair and unreasonable inferences from one


case he should do so in the other case, or he should examine the cases and find out where the truth lies. It is quite wrong to say when the facts are the same that something is wrong in one case and is right in another.

I assume that the right course was taken in the case of the Craigieburn transaction. I assume a valuation supported $1'4 million and I point out that if that is so, here is a similar sequence of events.

MR. WILKES: You suggest that the Government should not be questioned?

Mr. HAMER: I suggest that the honorable member should act in a more fair and reasonable way and await the outcome of the board of inquiry which will produce the facts about which there is so much argument.

I come back to the board of inquiry. In the light of events, the appointment of a board of inquiry is probably the best thing that could possibly happen. All sorts of facts and values could be bandied across this House and inferences drawn according to political inclinations but the facts remain to be proven. This Government wants the full facts as much as anybody else.

I started by saying that I know of no irregularity. If, as the outcome of the board of inquiry, any irregularity is shown to have occurred, the Government will be the first to take whatever action is required. I enjoin this House not to be led astray by inferences, statements and facts which are misinterpreted. Honorable members should wait until the facts are established and then take action. I promise the House that when the facts are known they can be debated at length and that the Government will join issue on them.

Mr. CAIN (Bundoora): Two points have emerged in this debate. The first was the Premier's interpretation of responsible government. In a rather shallow contribution to the debate the Premier seemed to say that if anything is wrong the Public Service should be blamed. In this

case the Premier seems to be saying, "Blame the Valuer-General if anything is wrong. The whole matter turns on valuation". It does not turn on valuation. If the Premier interprets what is going on in this State in these transactions in that way, it shows how shallow his contribution has been and how little he knows about what is taking place in his departments.

The second point that emerged from what members of the Government party have said tonight is that they intend to hide behind the shield offered by the Minister of Housing because he was not a Minister at the time. Members of the Government party are using the device of a Ministerial statement by the Minister of Housing. A number of people in this House on both sides feel sorry and concerned for the Minister because he has inherited this bag. He did not know what happened in 1973 and 1974. He pored over the files for weeks until he gained some inkling about what was happening, and to his credit he acted accordingly.

It is true that two or three things that had not occurred before happened in the middle of this year. The honorable member for Niddrie and the honorable member for Knox went to Adelaide. They opened the bag and showed what was going on. It is also true that the Labor Party sought access to records and indicated that it intended to interview certain people, but beyond that not much happened.

The Minister of Housing, when he read the file, knew something was wrong and said, " Documents missing from the files were some of the matters that led to my disquiet and led to my calling in the police and led to my calling for this inquiry." For that the Minister ought to be commended. It is true, of course, that he was concerned-we all were-by the call by the honorable member for Westernport. The Leader of the Opposition read out to this House what the honorable member had said and I think that also had some effect.


I hope the honorable member for Western port makes a contribution to the debate. It was the Minister of Housing who believed from what he had seen in the files that there was a need for a police inquiry and for a full inquiry, and he acted accordingly. The arrogance that the Government displayed before the Minister did that was typical, and it was the same sort of arrogance that one Richard Milhous Nixon displayed two and a half or three years ago, a cover-up all the while. I should have thought that what happened to Nixon would have been a lesson to all Governments, but it was not to be.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! I cannot see how Mr. Nixon is relevant to this debate.

Mr. CAIN: I draw the parallel; I think the House and the gallery will see the parallel.

H.onorable members interjecting. The SPEAKER Order! Honorable

members will cease interjecting and the honorable member for Bundoora will make no reference to the gallery or to the people who are in it.

Mr. CAIN: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the heart of this matter so far as the people of Victoria are concerned, and that is the monumental waste of public money that has taken place in regard to these transactions. In a little over a year there was a spending spree of spectacular proportions. Some $11 million or thereabouts of public money was spent in buying three lots of raw land out in the sticks. Of that $11 million, no more than $6·2 million went to the farmers, the landholders. The remainder went to the developers, financiers and what I shall call the urgers. They shared approximately $4 ·15 million.

Reference has been made by the Premier and other speakers to the philosophy of the Government not to acquire land. That may be its philosophy, but as a result the urgers moved in, manipulated Government departments and their officers and created false prices. The honorable member for Knox will demonstrate quite clearly that if the buck was to

be passed here, and the Premier seemed to want to pass the buck to the Valuer-General, then the ValuerGeneral has a lot to answer for in the calculations and valuations he made.

Why did this happen? Why did responsible officers of Government departments, in the Housing Commission, and the Valuer-General's office get themselves into this position? It is true that we are talking about millions of dollars and people to whom millions do not mean anything. These are the smart operators in the land development field. If there is anything that comes out of this inquiry, it is what a can of worms there is in the land development industry-it moves in all directions. I hope the inquiry will reveal what happened.

Four groups of people will be examined by the inquiry and ought to be examined by Parliament. The first group is the farmers who want to sell their land and move on. I understand that· they are in for what they can get.' The second group is the developers and one expects that the developers will wheel and deal because that is the system that the Government nurtures and wants to operate. The third group is the Housing Commission, which has a l?t to answer for in regard to the way In which it behaved in these transactions. But most of all, the group of people to whom the buck comes is the Victorian Cabinet. The Cabinet made it all happen; its members collectively were the people responsible for the spending of public money. They made the decisions and they are accountable to the people of this State.

Why did it happen? The politics of the time had something to do with it. The move by the Federal Government to establish a land commission led to the Victorian Government and the Housing Commission cutting across what the Federal body was doing.

I refer the Parliament to a diary note from the Housing Commission file of 18th July, 1973, signed by Mr. Creighton and headed "Conference held at 179 Queen Street, Melbourne,


on 17th July, 1973, between the Honorable V. O. Dickie, M.L.C., Minister of Housing, Mr. J. P. Gaskin, Director of Housing, Mr. A. L. Bohn, Secretary of Housing, Mr. W. Creighton, Property Control Manager."

I shall be referring to this document later, and the reference I make in support of my contention about the politics of this matter is contained on the first page. Mr. Creighton, in the diary note on what the Minister of Housing said, reported-

The Minister advised that he had called the meeting to confirm a direction given by Cabinet on Monday. 16th July, 1973, concerning the establishment of a commission as a land developing organization as a State alternative to the Commonwealth proposal concerning the establishment of land commissions. The Minister stated that Cabinet had decided that large acreages of land would be purchased in Pakenham, Sunbury, Melton and Kilmore, and the priorities with regard to purchase would be as follows-

He then set out the priorities that were to be followed. As I said, the politics of the time dictated the Government's action. That diary note referring to the decision in July, 1973, however, does not explain the purchase of the Pakenham land, and I will say more about that later, because it had taken place some months before. A decision had apparently been taken in January.

The suggestion that the politics of the time explained it is supported by an examination of the newspapers at the time. The Premier had made a point of saying that the Victorian Government was going to furnish cheap land. The figure of $5,000 was mentioned frequently. The Premier was saying, " We will supply land in the metropolitan area to young couples for $5,000." That was fine, and everybody wanted it, but it never happened. These were pious utterances about which the Premier felt concern when he saw what was happening in South Australia, but he thought the Victorian Government might be shown up by what the Federal Government was proposing to do.

In the months that followed, to support what the Government set out to do, we were always told by the Minister of Housing and the Premier, as the Leader of the Opposition said so eloquently in his address, that these were good buys, too good to pass up. The Government always defended them and said that it had made killings in the market.

What has happened in the past month? We have now been told that the Government is not in the business of acquiring land and paying less for that land than it is worth, having regard to the purpose for which it will be used. That is the philosophy of the Government; if it is to be used for residential purposes, that is the sort of price that should be paid. The Government did not say three years ago that this was the basis on which the prices were calculated. I do not know how the Premier could contribute to the debate tonight and not refer to the responsibility of the Valuer-General's Department. I find it incomprehensible, but that is the philosophy of the Government.

It is sheer humbug to raise that defence now. For three years the Government said that they were great prices, great buys, but now it is shifting ground and saying that it pays the price that the land is worth having regard to what it is to be used for.

Going through the files one gets the impression that the commission was concerned to acquire land compulsorily. That phrase is used in the files in respect of the Melton transaction, although not in respect of the others. At one stage in the files appears an admonition by the Premier and a correction, and the Premier is assured by the commission officers that compulsory acquisition will not happen without consultation with the Minister of Housing and the Premier.

I offer some detail on the matters about which this inquiry has to be


concerned to give answers to Parliament and the people of Victoria. To do so I must go into detail about several m'atters.

There are four groups that have to be looked at closely. The first group contains the middle-men or urgers to whom I referred earlier; the second is the valuations that were referred to by the Premier. Those two aspects will be dealt with in detail by the honorable member for Knox, and he will destroy utterly the contention of the Premier that these vaIuations were other than nonsense. The other matters are the role of the agents and the choice of the land, and I will deal with these.

I deal firstly with the land. In respect of each of the three lots it can be said from a study of the files, personal observation of honorable members who have looked at the land and all the material available that the land was poor for residential purposes; it varied in quality and there was better land in the areas which was, as the inquiry will show, more accessible to all the facilities that urban land ought to have. It is clear from the files that in many cases no real study of the requirelnents was made.

I refer again the the memorandum that I mentioned earlier. I refer to the diary note of 18th July, 1973, under the comments regarding Pakenham. The note reads-

This land is already owned by the commission but the Minister intimated that he would like the commission to commence immediately with the development of that portion of the estate as lies east of the Toomuc Creek, i.e. that portion which lies outside the bounds of the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme. That land was subject, for planning purposes, to an interim development order of the Shire of Berwick, the then responsible authority. No other planning ordinance affected the land. It was proposed at that stage tha t all of the planning procedures be thrown aside and simply to take the land and develop it. That has not happened. Part of the parcel of land in Pakenham is flood-prone. All these

Mr. Cain.

matters are in the file. If the Minister of Public Works, who is interjecting, took the trouble to read it he would have seen that for himself.

The document referred to a report from the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. The report suggested that there were drainage problems and the only solution was the construction of works to divert the course of the creek and that urban development should not be permitted in that catchment as there are other areas more suitable and which provide adequate drainage. There is better land available in Pakenham and the report of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, to which the Housing Commission had access when it bought this land, contained that information-although it came in after a decision was made, but I do not know why. In 1974 the consultants who were called in, Messrs. Clarke Gazzard and Co., asked, "Why did you buy this land? It is no good." They were told that the Housing Commission was not keen about it but was forced or was told to buy it.

I refer now to the Sunbury land. So far as I can ascertain from the file, there was no attempt to get a geological report on that land. It is an area affected by basalt-type stone. It is a plateau. From the evidence given at the inquiry today it appears that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, over the past four years, was determined to protect the integrity of its plan for this area. The fact is that honorable members are now told that this area will be used for the development of two houses to an acre. The projection given at the time of purchase of the land, with which the honorable member for Knox will deal, was four houses to an acre. That is the basis on which the valuations were made. Now there are to be two houses to an acre' and there are to be something of the order of 2,000 homes in the whole area.


Something has been said about the rural nature of the land and, by way of interjection, Government supporters commented about paying residential prices for land for other uses. Honorable members have now been told that less than two-thirds of the area will be used for housing purposes. The Government has paid residential prices for land that will be used for a golf course and a bridle track for horses and ponies. That is the policy the Government says this House should endorse. That is how it justifies the price it paid for the land.

I refer now to the suitability of land in Melton for the Housing Commission. There are three lots. The first is the one the Government chose and which the then Minister of Housing directed the commission to select. A memorandum which is on file made it clear that it was the only one the commission could buy. The land was miles from the railway line. The purchase was supported on the basis that it was a compact package because Welmac had put the package together.

Mr. WILKES: We know why they put it together.

Mr. CAIN: The middle man could not make title and could not comply with the provisions of the Sale of Land Act. In addition, part of the land was what is known as old law land. It had to be brought under the Transfer of Land Act and the Government had all the trouble in the world putting the package together. The board of inquiry will tell us why those purchases were made, having regard to those facts. There is no evidence anywhere in the files to indicate that adequate studies were made as to the suitability of this land for the purposes for which it was bought.

If the Government proposed, as it is now contended, to provide cheap land then there had to be a change in the zoning of the land. If the Government bought the land intending to change the zoning, it intended to throw aside the planning provisions that existed in the State and zone the land as it wished. If the

Government did not intend to do that it had no right to buy rural land. The Government cannot have it both ways. If that is what the Government was doing it was casting aside all the planning ordinances it had built up in the State, complex as they are, and was making a decision to turn land from farmland into residential land overnight. Honorable members know what happened. That has not been done.

r mention finally the role of the agents. That is the second matter about which the people of Victoria must get details from the board of inquiry. Dillon and Inkster were the agents for transactions with the Housing Commission. They wore two hats. They received a commission from the seller, and, it is suggested they were the agents for the Housing Commission. I want to know whose agents they were. If they were the agents for the Housing Commission, did they have a broad brief to go out and buy land and wheel and deal for the Housing Commission? If that is so the Government should say so. Did the Government intend to pay them commission as the purchasing agent and have them buy the land at the best possible price? That is what a purchasing agent should do. If they were the agent of the seller and he paid their commission they should have acted for him and got the best price, namely, the highest price. The Housing Commis-sion should get the lowest price. What is the position? The agent cannot serve two masters. I cannot understand how the Premier can make a contribution to the debate tonight and not offer some explanation about that.

When one examines the papers on the file one finds that the agent had no regard for legalities or statutory requirements. Notices were undated weeks or months after transactions were completed. In the Sunbury transaction a sale note was sent on 8th August and the decision to buy was not made until 9th August. That is the sort of thing that happened. Paperwork meant nothing. It


was done afterwards to conform with a given situation. No wonder the Minister of Housing was concerned. No wonder he called in the police. No wonder he wanted an inquiry. The same situation prevailed with the Pakenham land. Again, the Pakenham file arose out of a letter Mr. Dillon sent to Mr. Riach on 26th January, 1973, long before there was any concern about satellite cities. It stated that the land could be bought for $2,700 an acre. How would Mr. DiIIon know that the Housing Commission wanted land in Pakenham?

The Pakenham transaction is a mystery unless the information that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned is available. Mr. Durston was concerned in the kidnapping case. About this time there was a meeting between Mr. Durston, Mr. Weeden and Mr. Crichlow at Mr. Weeden's home in Toorak. The subject was how to sell land to the Housing Commission. Durston was the expert. He provided information for a fee of $20,000, which he did not receive. That is something the inquiry ought to reveal. Durston knew Dillon and had dealings with him. He handled a number of deals for him. That is the type of operation for which the Government has been responsible. In the Sunbury transaction, again Mr. Dillon is involved, but also Moore Williams and Son Pty. Ltd. That firm played the two roles this time acting as seller's agent for Mr. McMahon, who owned the land originally, and then at the other end of the transaction sharing profit with Lensworth Finance Ltd. With Mr. Kean that firm shared the massive profit that Lensworth Finance Ltd. made on the deal. On the one hand Moore Williams and Son Pty. Ltd. took part as agent for the seller and then a couple of weeks later shared in the spoils. That is the type of operation that is involved, but again honorable members are told that everything is above board.

The Melton land deal involved Cambridge Credit Corporation. Again Mr. Durston was involved. He said that he had a special buyer and asked what was in it for him. An

Mr. Cain.

amount of $250 an acre is the asking price and, happily, the records of Cambridge Credit Corporation have been preserved. That company is in the hands of a receiver and the records will be produced at the inquiry. They will show that there were two commissions paid. Mr. Durston states that he should have received $70,000. Somebody else states that he should have received $88,000, but he received only $20,000, so· what is going on? That is a trans'action which the Government has covered up for three and a half years.

I submit that it all gets back to Ministerial responsibility. The Government cannot run away from it. These are the matters that the inquiry has to bring out. Why did the Government participate in this type of operation? Soon after the present Minister of Housing looked at the file he saw that something was wrong, but for three and a half years the other members of the Government had allowed it to go on. That is the crux of the issue, and if the Premier and his Ministers are not prepared to offer an explanation to this Parliament, which they have the opportunity to do tonight, they should resign.

The Leader of the Opposition was right when he stated that there is no other honourable course which they can adopt. There is no issue which has stirred up the public in this State so much as this one. Members of the public hate to see its money being wasted, and so they should. What right does this Government have to put $4· 5 million into the hands of people who just sign bits of paperas the Melbourne Age stated. That is all they did.

The Government should not run away from this affair, but should offer an explanation tonight. The explanation it has offered so far in the Ministerial statement is as shallow as a tin dish and does not get to the real guts of the matter. These are the things which the inquiry should find out. It has already started to do so, but this Parliament should


also have the opportunity of doing so. In fact, it has a responsibility to look at the transactions which have gone on and the Government should not be allowed to get away with this type of action any more.

Mr. KENNETI (Burwood): The honorable member for Bundoora and the Leader of the Opposition, but particularly the honorable member for Bundoora, spoke about developers being like a can of worms. The whole performance of the Opposition tonight has been like that of the lifestyle of a silkworm which eats roots and leaves and does most of its work in the dark. What the Opposition has come up with tonight has been totally prepared in the dark. I should like to make a couple of points in answer to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Bundoora.

Before I develop the principle in which I believe very much, a principle in which the Government also believes very much and I refer to the principle of joint venture--I mention that the Leader of the Opposition, when referring to the price paid for land, said that municipal valuers simply valued land on what they knew and not on what they thought. That is also my understanding, and from my reading of the papers that has been the case in this instance, particularly as it applies to the price paid for the land that the Government purchased around Melbourne. The Government purchased land at the price recommended by the Valuer-General who knew the purpose for which th~ land was to be used. The Valuer-General knew that the Government was not purchasing the land to continue farming, but that it was purchasing the land for redevelopment so that land for low-cost housing could be provided for those in the community who are less fortunate.

Mr. McINNES: How did the ValuerGeneral know that?

Mr. KENNETT: The Valuer-General knew because he was instructed. That is my understanding, and it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the

Valuer-General was wrong in valuing the land on that basis because having being given instructions by the Government, he could value it only for residential housing as that is the only business in which the Housing Commission is engaged. Its purpose is to provide low-cost housing for the people of Victoria.

Every piece of land which has been bought by the Housing Commission has been bought with the sole intention of providing low-cost housing.

The Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Bundoora referred to a press statement by the Minister of Housing at that time, the Honorable V. O. Dickie, about Government land being sold to people who could not afford to pay the high prices for land being sold at that time. Both honorable members said incorrectly that no land had been sold by the Housing Commission, and this supports my belief that the Opposition has done all of its work in the dark because that is not a fact.

In 1974-75, throughout Victoria the Housing Commission sold 250 blocks of land at prices ranging between $6,000 and $7,000 a block. In 1975-76 it sold 179 blocks of land.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs: Where? Mr. KENNETT: Throughout Vic

toria. That land was sold for prices between $6,000 and $8,000 a block. In 1976-77, the Housing Commission sold another 166 blocks, but the Leader of the Opposition said tonight that the Housing Commission had not sold any land. Interjections come thick and fast stating where the land was but the blocks of land that have been sold are located throughout the State.

The Premier informed the House quite speCifically that over the past four years, the housing funds allocation from the Federal Government, regardless of its political persuasion, has been relatively stable at about $98 million. In real terms the amount of land that can be obtained with those funds has been substantially reduced, whereas the need and


demand for low-cost housing has increased. No one should be expected to pay high prices for land, and despite the interjections of honorable members, I do not believe the Government paid a high price for the land it purchased. It must be remembered that when the Housing Commission purchased its land, it was buying during a land boom when everyone was purchasing land and when everyone expected the market to continue to rise. What this Government was doing in making these purchases was securing land to provide houses for the future generations of this State.

Mr. FORDHAM: It was forcing up the price of land.

Mr. KENNETI: Not at all. The Government was buying broad acres to achieve two purposes; firstly to provide housing in the future for future generations of Victorians-to provide them with an opportunity at that time of obtaining a house at a reasonable price-and, secondly to allow the Government and the Housing Commission to carry out their responsibilities of providing a new concept in housing in Victoria wherever the Housing Commission was involved.

There has been only one instance in Australia where the development of land similar to Goonawarra and Mount Ridley has been successful and that was at West Lakes in South Australia. Goonawarra at Sunbury has potential and is at present being planned to provide for a social mixing of housing to provide a more balanced community.

The honorable member for Bundoora continued to throw up irrelevancies by referring to golf courses. It is not correct that the golf course is to be paid for by the Housing Commission. Not one cent of the cost of the golf course is being provided by the Government and the honorable member for Bundoora by his remarks showed that he had a total ignorance of the information contained in the files.

The golf course will be provided simply by selling the blocks of land fronting the course at a higher price to the private sector; that will pay for the course.

Mr. ROPER: That is mixed development, is it?

Mr. KENNETT: Of course, it is mixed development. People in this State are becoming more aware of the total incompetence of members of the Opposition in perusing files and in understanding Government policy.

When the Government talks about joint ventures, it is talking about two things-a social mix within the community and the involvement of private money to enable the Government to provide low-cost housing that it would not otherwise be able to provide. If the Opposition continues to knock that concept, it will be clear that the Opposition, which is the al~ ternative Government, no longer considers the needs of those who earn less than $150 or $160 a week.

The estate at Goonawarra has tremendous potential and prospects for the people of Victoria. Basically, it will be split up in three ways. If Labor Party members had properly read the files, they would understand this. One-third of the development will be undertaken by the Housing Commission inasmuch as half of that one-third, which comprises one~sixth of the over-all development, Will be available for sale whilst the other half of that one-third will be Housing Commission development available for lease. The rest of the estate wilJ be developed by private enterprise either in package form or individual development. This will give a social mix with 'Housing Commission development spread throughout the community.

Mr. ROPER: But not around the golf course.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): The honorable member will ignore the interjection.

Mr. KENNETT: It is difficult to ignore the interjection because it is relevant and continues to demonstrate the total lack of knowledge of


members of the Opposition. If the honorable member for Brunswick had looked at the plans and ·the designs of the over-all scheme, he would have seen that the majority of the golf course area will be available for private development and will be sold under the joint venture scheme so that obviously the course will be financed from the higher prices paid. However, the course will be utilized by the 8,000 people who will reside on the estate.

If it had not been for the accusations by the Opposition the Government would be well ahead with the development of this project and other projects providing low-cost housing. The Government needs the money from these joint ventures to ensure that it can continue to provide lowcost housing.

An honorable member, by interjection, refers to bankruptcy, but it is not a matter of bankruptcy at all. Honorable members on the Opposition benches ask for more money to be spent on education, hospitals and so on, but they are not prepared at any stage to work out the figures. The Government has only so much money and can spend it only in so many ways. These joint ventures will give the people of Victoria the opportunity to purchase their own homes, an opportunity that is currently not being afforded them because of economic restraints. Accordingly, the joint venture as such should not be ridiculed; it should be praised in its entirety.

The Government has advertised for developers to look at developments in other areas and the response has been good. The Government has been hindered by the Opposition. In response to its advertisement relating to the Mount Ridley proposal, the Government has received 54 applications.

Mr. TREZISE: How many are prepared to put money in the Liberal Party slush fund?

Mr. KENNETT: Again, the Opposition has the magnificent obsession that any land deal must be cor-

rupt. Over the past eighteen months, on no occasion has the Opposition been able to provide ·the people of Victoria with one new policy. All it does is to continue to ridicule, to pick, and to accuse by innuendo. Indeed, the OppositioQ has presented no facts at all.

Somebody mentioned big rip-offs being made by the purchasers of. the land which was sold to the Housing Commission. I do not agree with that contention. A private citizen who acts in good faith and takes an entrepreneurial risk is entitled to make a profit, whether it relates to land or anything else. Again, the Opposition has failed to prove anything concrete. I support the principle that anyone who acts in good faith and takes risks should be able to profit by his actions, regardless of the size of the profit. That is what the free enterprise system is all about. However, as the Premier said, if any privileged information has been divulged, obviously it is a different ball game and I will be the first to support the Premier or any other Minister in ensuring that restitution is made. Up to date, the Opposition has proved nothing. The matter is now quite correctly in the hands of a board of inquiry, which will find the facts.

Joint ventures in this State have provided a tremendous opportunity for involvement and home ownership. The Government went to the polls in 1973, immediately following these land purchases. No accusations were made by the Opposition then, and the Government was returned with a landslide majority. The Government also went to the polls in 1976 and again had a magnificent win. It was resoundingly returned because the people of this State want home ownership. On the 18th September, 1973, as reported at page 306 of volume 313 of Hansard, the then Leader of the Opposition moved-

That this House expresses its grave concern at the adverse social, economic and environmental effects of the inflation in land prices in the metropolitan area and calls on the Government, either separately or in conjuction with the Commonwealth,


to establish a Lands Commission and price stabilization legislation to eradicate the shortage in the supply of broad acres and serviced blocks.

Mr. RaPER: He was not advocating rip-offs.

Mr. KENNETT: What the then Leader of the Opposition was saying was that we must ensure at all times, both then and in the future, that we provide for those members of t~e community who want to Own theIr own homes. This is what the Government has provided and that is why the people of this State have returned the Government to office. I am sure that most people in this State recognize that what the Government has done is in their long-term interests.

Even now, if the purchase price of the land were divided by the total number of blocks which will be available for development, each block will cost only $1,500, which is much cheaper than the present price of $14,000 or $15,000. The Government's action is also in line with what was said by the Leader of the National Party which appears at page 332 of the same volume of Hansard.

I do not want to go further because if neccesary, my colleagues will e~pound on this matter. It is regrettable that the debate has been so uninspiring and has been so badly led. As a member with a Housing Commission area in his electorate, I am prepared to tell the people .th~re or those in any other commISSIOn area as well as the people of Victoria gen~rally, that the Opposition is so concerned about profits being made in the normal course of business, that it would rather eradicate the possibility of people ever acquiring their own homes than allow profit making to continue. The Opposition does not stand for home ownership or for the man in the street; it stands for its own vested interest.

This whole debate has been an attempt to denigrate the Government by innuendo. The Government stands on its record and, as a new member of this House, I am proud of that record. I challenge the Opposition

to provide to this Parliament fresh policies which can be put to the people of Victoria because, if it continues on its present course, the Government will be returned in 1979 with an even greater majority.

Mr. CRABB (Knox): I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and the remarks of my colleague, the honorable member for Bundoora. Regarding the comments of the last speaker, honorable members are accustomed to the clich~ that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The honorable member for Burwood could perhaps adapt that to "There is no such thing as a free g~lf course." That is about as much as anyone would want to say about the last speech.

In his contribution to the debate, the Premier referred to the valuation and the prices paid for parcels of land at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton. He said that the crux of the matter was the valuations that determined the prices paid. Perh~ps he was thinking that the valuatIO!l. of anything is a matter of expert opInIOn and he could hide behind that fact. I will take up that challenge and in the time available to me try to demonstrate to the Premier what he surely must know. He ha~ ex~mined the files which have been In hIS P?Ssession and his Cabinet's possessIon for the past three and a half years.

As I said the value of any item is arguable always and I do not intend to put forward conflicting professional opinions. I will examine. the way the prices and the valuattons were arrived at because in all of these deals there are significant aberrations in the way in which this has been done. These aberrations are so clear and evident as to be alarming to any lay,man. The first apparent contradiction in the nature of the valuations was a lack of independence in the valuers who made the valuations. At the time these valuations were made the valuers were actually working in the Housing Commission office under the day-today direction of Housing Commission officers. They seldom if ever


saw the Valuer-General. The only connection between them and the Valuer-General's Department was that they were listed in the records of the Public Service. The fact is that day by day all the things they did were under the direction of Housing Commission officials. I am sure honorable members who belong to professions will realize the difficulty that would confront anyone in this situation in attempting to act as an independent professional person. The Government is responsible for the situation which created that lack of independence in the valuers. The Government, the Premier, and his Cabinet were responsible for the results of that lack of independence.

I refer to the first land deal chronologically of those the House is examining-that is the purchase of the Duncan land at Pakenham. The Duncan family had a sizeable farm at Pakenham of 1,044 acres. During 1972 the family arranged to split that farm into three parts. Mr. Crichlow, a Sydney investor, took out a caveat on that land and a contract for sale, and purchased one part containing 257 acres at a price of $800 an acre. The land Mr. Crichlow purchased in June, 1972, was in the south-east corner. This piece of land is on the outskirts of the Pakenham township. It could reasonably be said that it is part of the Pakenham township. Part of it is subdivided into building blocks. The remaining land was offered to the Housing Commission on 26th January, 1973, by the agent Dillon and Inkster. It was offered to the Housing Commission out of the blue. At that stage according to the files no one had said that the commission was interested in buying that land or any other land at Pakenham. The commission had not looked at any other land at Pakenham.

Some two months later, on 19th March, 1973, the Housing Commission agreed at a meeting to obtain a valuation on that land. Ten days later, Mr. Riach, the land purchasing officer of the Housing Commission, sent a memorandum to the valuer telling of an offer for the land-that

is, 787 acres of the remaining two parts-and indicating that it was being offered to the Housing Commission for purchase. He also claimed that there was an offer to the owner of the land by a company called Lomar Investments in Sydney. The offer was for a total of $2· 033 million, representing about $2,500 an acre.

It is interesting to note that a search of the companies' offices in Melbourne and Sydney shows no record of a company called Lomar Investments. It is possible that the company has gone into liquidation in the intervening period. The only information I have obtained is an unsubstantiated report that it is a company associated with Mr. Crichlow, the gentleman who bought the third part of land. At that time Mr. Riach drew the attention of the valuer to this strange offer. It is strange that anyone should make an offer for land on which he had a contract of sale six months previously. He was also concerned that the purchase should go through quickly. He said that the offer of Lomar Investments was-

. . . subject to confinnation by their full board on 16th April. If nothing is received from the commission by then, it is believed it is proposed to sell. On the same day a memorandum was forwarded to the valuer. The memorandum was signed by Mr. Riach on behalf of Mr. Creighton, the property control manager. It repeated the information that Lomar Investments requested an option of $2· 033 million, which is equal to about $2,500 an acre. I ask honorable members whether that is likely when better land adjoining this land had been sold six months previously for $800 an acre!

On 9th April, Mr. Morey, the valuer in this instance, valued the land at $2,800 an acre and quoted the owner as Duncan Brothers. He did not mention Mr. Crichlow's caveat and more importantly did not mention at any stage the adjoining land, the third piece of the Duncan land which had been sold six months earlier for


$800 an acre. Therefore, he ignored the Crichlow purchase. On the same day as this report is dated, on 9th April, the Housing Commission approved the purchase of the land for up to the sum of $2· 1 million. On 13th April, four days later, Mr. Riach reported- back to the Housing Commission. He said that the initial offer for a sum of $2·033 million was accepted. That is exactly the sum that the valuer had been directed to regarding the spurious offer from the unknown Sydney company. As it happened that was not the sum that was paid because the Education Department required 17 acres of the land and in due course it was agreed that a little under $2 million would be paid for the remaining 770 acres. Five days later the then Minister of Housing recommended the purchase and the Premier approved it. It was not until two months later that Mr. Crichlow's caveat was removed. No one had mentioned its existence or had apparently been aware of it. Two weeks after that the land was transferred to the Housing Commission.

It is interesting to note what happened to the third part of the land, the good part, which Mr. Crichlow had purchased for $800 an acre. On 21st December, 1973, six months later, he sold the land for $1,876 an acre. He sold it, not to the Housing Commission, but to a company called Edwalls Beef and Agistment Pty. Ltd. Therefore, the Housing Commission paid a residential price for paddocks, and a grazing company paid rural prices for building blocks next door to that land. In arriving at this incredible amount of $2 million for this land which has been described by the honorable member for Bundoora, the existence of the caveat was not discovered. No one was told of the spurious offer for the land and at no stage did anyone check on the title or the information that had been given to a valuer who had made the valuation. Who put the deal together? The gentlemen involved were Mr. Aubrey Crichlow, a grazier from Surfer's Paradise, his associate, Mr. Weeden of Toorak, the

Mr. Crabb.

real estate agent, Mr. Bob Dillon of Dandenong, and his associate, Mr. Ray Durston. Mr. Durston and Mr. Dillon were acknowledged at that time as specialists in selling land for the Housing Commission, and one can understand why. One other event for which Mr. Durston is renowned is that he kidnapped Mr. Weeden in 1975, apparently in an attempt to collect his share of the profits.

Perhaps one can imagine the devious activities of this bizarre group of gentlmen, but however devious those activities one can hardly understand how the Housing Commission could be duped by such transparent methods into arriving at a price of $2 million for this land. No checks were made on the title; no checks were made on the information given to the valuer. The commission merely paid the price asked of it.

Soon after the deal at Pakenham was sewn up our friends Dillon and Durston were in action again, this time on the other side of the city, at Sunbury. Here there was a difference. It was not the agent who introduced the land to the Housing Commission. It was not the agent who turned up first in the file. The first mention of the Lensworth land at Sunbury comes, remarkably enough, in a memorandum of a conference held at the Housing Commission on 17th July, 1973, between the Minister of Housing, the Director of Housing, the Secretary of Housing and the property control manager of the Housing Commission. I quote from the document-

The Minister advised that he had called a meeting to confirm a direction given by Cabinet on Monday, 16th July, 1973. The memorandum later states-

The Minister stated that Cabinet had decided that large acreages of land would be purchased in Pakenham. Sunbury, Melton and Kilmore and that the priorities with regard to purchase would be as follows-

1. Sunbury. 2. Pakenham. 3. Melton. 4. Kilmore.


The memorandum states that the Minister made the following comment with relation to Sunbury-

The commission was to be free to purchase land presently owned by Lensworth Finance (Vie.) Pty. Ltd. on the east side of Jacksons Creek presently zoned as cc general farming".

That is the first mention of that land in any of the files made available to the Opposition and, presumably, it is its first mention in the files available to the Government for four years.

At the time of this meeting the Pakenham land had already been purchased and one can only speculate on whether Cabinet knew it had been purchased because, according to the memorandum, several copies of which turned up on several files and one would imagine an error would not have gone uncorrected for so long-

The priorities with regard to purchase would be as follows-

1. Sunbury. 2. Pakenham.

The Pakenham land had already been purchased. How could Sunbury be bought in priority to Pakenham when Pakenham had already been purchased? It seems that Cabinet does not know what it is talking about.

After the meeting of 17th July things happened fairly quickly. On 20th July an engineer's report was requested. Peculiarly enough, as we are probably all aware, no memorandum requesting a valuation appears on the files. But all honorable members know what was in the memorandum; it was an instruction that the valuation should be based on the residential zoning of land which was and still is to this day zoned for general farming.

Between 17th July and 9th August Mr. O'Bree, another valuer in the Housing Commission, made a note of a conversation he had with Mr. Riach, the land purchasing officer. That handwritten note reads-

Information N. Riach. Option. Caveat. December, 1970, $2,000. Renewed December, 1972, $3,000. $100. $3,400 per acre.

That is precisely what it says. What it is referring to is the Lensworth option on the McMahon land at Sunbury, which was taken out in December, 1970, for $2,000. However, it was renewed at $2,000. It was always at $2,000 and was never at $3,000.

On 9th August Mr. O'Bree tendered his valuation on the Sunbury land. That valuation states-

Pursuant to your instructions-These are those fabled instructions that are not on any file. Mr. O'Bree is a fairly careful public servant and later in his valuation stated-

I have been informed that Lensworth Finance (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. renewed the option in December, 1972, for two years at $7,410 per hectare ($3,000 per acre). Documentary evidence of the option has not been sighted.

Yet, on the basis of that, Mr. O'Bree went ahead and produced a valuation. Mr. O'Bree continued-

Aparot from the knowledge of the option which is assumed to be bona fide the following residential sales are considered the most significant guide to the value of the land as a residential proposition.

Mr. O'Bree was very careful. He said there was a lack of direct sales evidence at Sunbury and he constructed a hypothetical subdivision by estimating that the land could be divided into 3,800 blocks and then estimated the amount for which they could be sold, thus working back to a purchase price. Presumably that is a proper way for a valuer to do his job. The only trouble is that there will not be 3,800 blocks, there will only be 2,300 and they will come from a larger area of land. The estimate was made on the basis of 3·8 blocks an acre but in fact the commission will obtain only 1·8 blocks an acre, which is less than half the original estimate.

It is obvious, therefore, that the valuation of the Sunbury land is based on three things: an option for $3,000, which never existed; prior knowledge of residential rezoning, which has not yet occurred; and the assumption that the land could be divided into 3,800 blocks, which is more than twice the


number of blocks into which the land will actually be divided. The price arrived at was $3,500 an acre.

On the same day, 9th August, that remarkably busy day at the Housing Commission, the commission approved the purchase for $100 an acre less, that is $3,400, which just happened to be the same figure Mr. Riach advised the Valuer-General of some weeks before. Just to make sure that everything ran efficiently, on the same day Mr. Dillon, the ubiquitous real estate agent, received a sale note from Lensworth Finance allowing him to sell the land at precisely the price agreed to by the Housing Corn-mission on that day.

Four days later, on 13th August, 1973, the Minister of Housing recommended the purchase. The Premier again approved it. No one checked the option. No one checked the rezoning. No one checked the number of blocks. The people involved made enormous profits. Mr. Dillon's profit was $70,000 in commission and the middlemen, the developers, Lensworth and Kean, between them made a profit of $1· 5 million.

Just as the deal at Sunbury was sewn up these same people, Dillon, Kean and Lensworth, turned their attention back to Pakenham and this sale at Pakenham is the most damning evidence against the Government and its conduct.

In late 1972 Lensworth purchased 106 acres of land slap-bang in the middle of the Housing Commission land purchased from Mr. Duncan at Pakenham. The Housing Commission did not attempt to buy it at the same time as it bought the Duncan land, but on 1st June, 1973, Mr. Creighton, the property control officer, directed Mr. O'Bree to value the land and told him that Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd. had made an offer of $3,500 an acre. Four days later, on 5th June, 1973, Mr. O'Bree gave a verbal valuation of $3,000 an acre. On the same day the Housing Commission agreed to offer $2,800 an acre, which represented a profit of 40 per cent in six months. That was

Mr. Crabb.

a pretty big profit but it was obviously not enough for Lensworth, which sold the land not to the Housing Commission, not to Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd., but to a company called Delgrange Investments Pty. Ltd. at a price of $3,110 an acre. The principal of Delgrange is Graeme Hill, the consultant at Sunbury. The profit to Kean and Lensworth was $117,000.

Nothing more was done on this land until October when the Sunbury deal was wrapped up and our friends had time to direct their attentions somewhere else. On 23rd October, 1973, Mr. Dillon again contacted the Housing Commission and informed it that Mr. Hill wanted to resell the land to the commission at $3,500 an acre, the price which they tried to get earlier. Mr. Riach recommended this strongly and on 30th October another valuation was asked for. This time it was sought not from Mr. O'Bree but from Mr. Morey-not the valuer of the Sunbury purchase, not the valuer who valued it for $3,000 an acre in June, but another valuerand the request for the valuation says-

It would appear that the present vendors would not be making a high profit in selling at $3,500 per acre when their expenses such as agents commission, stamp duty, interest, legal fees, etc., are taken into account. That was the justification that was given. Mr. Morey valued the land, conveniently enough, at $3,500 an acre. His sole evidence for his valuation reads as follows-

The most recent known sales in the area are those made to the commission and that of the subject property which was purchased for $3,100 per acre in June, 1973. The habit of the Housing Commission, seems to be to cut $100 or more off the valuation, and in this instance the commission offered $3,250 an acre for the land. On 9th November, Mr. Riach reported back that the offer had been rejected and the vendor still wanted to sell it to the Housing Commission for $3,500 an acre. But an extra piece of evidence is thrown in. We are told that Consolidated Home Industries made an offer of $5,000 an acre. That


would have produced $200,000 in profit to the vendor, but he did not want that profit; he wanted to sell the land to the Housing Commission.

On 13th November the Housing Commission changed its mind and offered $3,500 an acre for the land. The Premier approved it, and the land was sold at the price asked for originally.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS: Do you think Consolidated Home Industries are still in the market for $5,000?

Mr. CRABB: The Leader of the Opposition has already dealt with the Melton purchase in some detail. It is extremely complex; suffice for me to say the pattern is the same. The Housing Commission paid the price which the developers asked. Under the direction, supervision and approval of the Minister of Housing and the Cabinet these shocking, disgraceful events occured.

What I have told the House covers the Duncan land at Pakenham, where in arriving at the price the fact that a Mr. Crichlow had a contract of sale on the land was ignored; a spurious offer was given to the valuer to jack up the price that was sought. At Sunbury, the valuer was instructed to base his valuation on residential zoning. He was told of a fake option and the number of blocks of land that was expected to be developed was inflated to double the figure it actually was. In the purchase of the Delgrange land, the central piece of the Pakenham package. VVe have not one or two spurious or fake options but, to get the price up to $3,500 an acre, three fake options. At Pakenharn, the best land went to Mr. Crichlow at $800 an acre. The worst land went to the Housing Commission at $2,600 an acre.

In one isolated case one could believe this was the result of stupidity. One could perhaps in one case believe it was the result of incompetence. One could perhaps in the Housing Commission's case believe it was inexperience, but this did not happen once but over and over again with the same people involved

in every action. It involved the then Minister for Housing personally directing that land be bought from particular vendors and particular places at particular times; the same agent forwarding the same type of incorrect information to the Housing Commission and the valuers over and over again.

Not only should the House express that it has no further confidence in the Government; the people of Victoria should have no confidence in a Government that can preside over this undeniable corruption.

Mr. TIlOMPSON (Minister of Education): Tonight is the first occasion we have heard the new Leader of the Opposition in action. We congratulate the honorable member on his appointment and we trust that he will do such a good job as Leader of the Opposition that he will remain in that position for many, many years to come. You never transfer a good full forward to full back. We should also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his stamina in speaking for two hours. However, we were disappOinted that his stamina was not matched by his logic, reasoning or evidence.

VVe have seen an extraordinary debate with C-class Elliott Nesses and E-class Sherlock Holmeses producing all kinds of details, and then drawing extraordinary, amazing conclusions from these, blackguarding all sorts of people concerned with the purchase of land by the Housing Commission.

The only logical criticism I heard tonight, and it was only a logical criticism on the surface, was that delivered by the honorable member for Bundoora when he criticized the Government for not producing at this stage any detailed evidence. In other circumstances that would be a reasonable criticism, but the fact is that the Government has appointed an independent inquiry headed by Sir Gregory Gowans to ascertain all the detailed facts concerning the choice


of land under discussion, relating to the actual price paid and other details of purchase.

As pointed out by the Leader of the National Party, it would be illogical indeed, and improper, for the Government to come into this House after deciding on an inquiry to ascertain all the detailed facts, and say, " Here are the detailed facts." That would be quite ridiculous. Therefore, Government members follow the approach of talking about the principles and policies that motivated these purchases.

The Leader of the Opposition in the early part of his speech spent a considerable time deploring the fact that home ownership was becoming more difficult. The Government agrees with him entirely. We know that during the period of galloping inflation, brought about to a large degree by three years of Whitlam Government rule, the price of houses has galloped astronomically. At the beginning of the 1970s an average threebedroom brick veneer house on the suburban fringe could be purchased for $15,000. Today a comparable house costs $37,000. If the request of Mr. Norman Gallagher of the Builders Labourers Federation for an additional $30 a week for members of his union was granted, and this was passed on to other unions-as it would be-what would be the effect? It would add in the view of the Master Builders Association another $2,000 to $3,000 to the cost of a house.

I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that, instead of complaining about the matter to the Government, he should go to his union masters and tell them to stop agitating for further unreasonable wage rises which must penalize the man in the street the prospective homeowner, to th~ extent of another $2,000 to $3,000 and place home ownership further beyond the reach of many young people on low and medium incomes. This is a matter of major concern to the Government.

Mr. ThomJJsQn.

The Government stands firmly behind its policy of home ownership and its belief that the homeowner is a more contented and more secure oitizen. If a person wants to own a home, an opportunity should be available to him. He should not be forced into leasing or renting or sharing; he should be given an opportunity of choosing to own a home.

This Government is proud of its record in this field. It is to be noted that a few years ago 79 per cent of Victorians owned the houses in which they lived. The percentage will drop unless drastic action is taken to curtail the price rises in the building industry which are brought about by excessive wage demands and strike action.

The next point relates to the decision of the Government to purchase some 3,000 acres of land. Why did the Government make that decision? In 1973, along with the Federal Government, the Victorian Government was concerned at the galloping increase in the price of land. There was a land boom, a Poseidon boom in the land area, and something had to be done to combat it. The Government therefore decided to purchase large areas of land alongside Housing Commission developments, which could be sold to homeowners. In other words there would be mixed estates where two-thirds of the blocks would be made available to private home buyers and one-third maintained for Housing Commission usage. It was a logical step which was generally commended at the time. Indeed, the Age editorial of 20th September, 1973, stated-

Instead of attacking spiralling land prices with the imperfect weapon of price control, the Hamer Government has wisely preferred to use a blend of competition and ~ompassion. Instead of running the risk of distorting the market, the Government has entered it in the interests of the "small man" . . . Thus, unlike some of the Federal Labor Government's proposals, the Victorian Government's plan deserves high marks both for economic sense and social justice.

The move was generally commended by people on both sides of the fence.


The second question asked tonight was why the Government had purchased the land in these areas. In 1973 the Premier announced that the aim of the Government from that time on was to develop housing in country areas, to cease building multi-storey flats in the inner metropolitan area and to concentrate on the development of satellite towns to cater for people wishing to work in the Melbourne metropolitan area. That policy was also applauded at the time.

It was therefore decided to consider twelve distinct possibilities provided by towns within 50 kilometres of Melbourne. After considerable investigation a decision was made to acquire land at Pakenham to cater for the eastern area, at Melton to cater for the western area, and at Sunbury to cater for the northern area. This satellite town approach was proposed following experiments that had been carried out successfully in places such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Successful ventures have taken place in locations such as Stevenage, Harlow, Welwyn Gardens City and MiltonKeynes in Buckinghamshire, the last mentioned being the most recent. They have been applauded by modern town planners because they provide great advantages in allowing people to enjoy the advantages of semirural life while continuing to work in the metropolitan area.

This matter is of fundamental importance. It is not possible to ignore completely the needs of the metropolitan area when there is a large list of people in the metropolitan area waiting for Housing Commission homes. The Government accepts the idea advanced by members of its own party from country areas that further impetus should be given to the development of housing in country areas. The Leader of the National Party stated that in 1955 42 per cent of the homes being erected were in country areas, and said that that percentage had dropped to 38 per cent at present. However, if the 1955 boundaries were

used it would be found that the percentage today would be nearer to 60. The Government believes that, next year, as a result of a particular stimulus to the development of housing estates in the major country centres, the percentage will certainly reach 60 and may even be a little higher. While developing these satellite towns on a planned basis the Government is certainly not ignoring the real need to aid the development of industry in country centres.

As I indicated earlier, it is not appropriate for the House to go into all the factual details that the board of inquiry will be examining. However, there have been many references to the firm of Dillon and Inkster. I point out that in recent years different agents have been used for large purchases by the Housing Commission. For example, other firms used during the past five years for purchases amounting to more than $500,000 include Abbott and Dean (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., Broomhall Janides and Associates Pty. Ltd., Dalgety Australia Ltd., J. A. Cain and Co. and Moore Williams and Son Pty. Ltd. which negotiated through a large building company. Therefore, in recent years a number of different agents have been used for large purohases by the Housing Commission, but commission has not been paid by the Housing Commission to the agents concerned; it has been paid by the vendors of the land.

There is a high measure of agreement on the major principles underlying these land purchases. Firstly, no criticism was made of the move to purchase large areas of land to provide blocks for young prospective homeowners. Secondly, there was general agreement at the time on the development of satellite towns within 50 kilometres of Melbourne and on the action that the Government has taken in a variety of fields to stimulate home ownership and keep it within the reach of young married couples during a time of galloping inflation.

There is one other general point made by the Opposition that merits comment. It has been suggested


that although it was a good move to keep down the price of land and to make land available to young couples at low cost, so far this land has not been made available. What is the reason for that? That is a fair question. There are two good reasons why this land has not been made available.

Firstly, there was a request from the planning authorities that before development took place in areas such as Melton and Sunbury an over-all plan should be determined or finalized, so at that stage there was a deliberate and, I believe, fully justified delay.

The second and more compelling reason why land has not been made available in the last eighteen months to two years is that the allocation from Commonwealth and State housing funds has remained at $98 million for four years during a time of rapid inflation. If it had kept pace with inflation it would have been possible to move forward and develop sections of the land at places such as Pakenham, Melton and Sunbury in the interests of young home purchasers. As finance becomes available, that course will be followed.

Therefore on the major issues of policy there appears to be general agreement. There is some disagreement about the details relating to the purchases. Because of the innuendoes continually being circulated in the daily press the Government took prompt and commendable action to appoint an independent inquiry under one of the most highly esteemed and experienced judges this State has ever seen, namely Sir Gregory Gowans, in whom everybody has confidence.

Instead of drawing cock-eyed conclusions from wild inferences and innuendoes, as the Opposition has done tonight, the Government's aim is to wait for this inquiry to be completed, to examine its recommendations and act upon them.

Mr. SIMPSON (Niddrie): If there is one thing for which this 47th Parliament of the State of Victoria will

be remembered, it is what I term " Operation Clean-up ". In the eighteen months of this Parliament there have been the Vapold scandal, the Beach inquiry scandal, the single tender contracts scandal, the Kaiser Aetna Australia Pty. Ltd. scandal, and now there is the land deals scandal.

What I find pleasing about c, Operation Clean-up" is the magnificent support and response the Opposition has received both from people outside this place and from honorable members opposite. I refer to a statement in an article in the National Times of 27th June last attributed to the honorable member for Westemport. I publicly congratulate the honorable member on having had the courage to make such a statement on record. It is a pity his example has not been followed by more members of the Government party to help in this operation.

The honorable member for Westernport is quoted as having said-

The people responsible for the current happenings are one of two things: They are either corrupt or incompetent. In either case they must go, and go quickly. The article continues-

Once corruption is established against the Government, it does not survive. This is the one great danger for the Liberal Party. . . . Governments cannot win elections when the public starts to suspect they are corrupt. I digress for one moment from the land deals and take issue with the contribution made by the Leader of the National Party, who said that he could not understand why the Government had introduced the subject here this evening. He thought it was wrong for this land deals scandal to be discussed within the Parliament.

Mr. STEPHEN: He did not say that. Mr. SIMPSON: If I have not

quoted the honorable member correctly, I will stand corrected, but the inference I took was that he would prefer that there be no debate on the matter here until the completion of the inquiry.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS: I did not say quite that; I said that the Government was foolish to bring it in.


Mr. SIMPSON: The Leader of the National Party suggested that the Government was foolish to bring the matter in and that he would prefer if there were no debate until the completion of the inquiry and the report from the board.

However, I believe that is not the correct policy to adopt because every time a government, no matter what its political persuasion, found itself in a sticky situation, all it would have to do would be to set up an inquiry and automatically silence this institution. That would be nonsense, for Parliament must be supreme over any inquiries that may be sought and established.

In this present case no charges have been laid, no one has been convicted or sent to gaol, and consequently Parliament must remain supreme, but if the other attitude were adopted let us consider what would have occurred in relation to the Vapold inquiry. There was an inquiry into Vapold and a report was issued in December and presented to the House, where debate ensued. However, only four speakers took part in the debate, which was then adjourned, and the item now lies on the Notice Paper and has lain there ever since. Therefore it is not simply a matter of saying that the matter can be brought back into the House for full and complete debate. What can happen is that a report can be brought on for debate; there may be two speakers and the Government could adjourn the debate and leave the matter on the Notice Paper to die. That could occur in this case, and therefore there is a risk in adopting that line of thinking.

I return to the land deals and start with the matters I first investigated, with the honorable member for Knox, in Sunbury. We received some helpful information to begin with. Certainly, as I did not divulge the source of my information on Vapold-it dropped from the back of a trucklikewise I would not do so in this case. I shall just say that useful information was made available to the honorable member for Knox and me.

We went to Adelaide and met with the management of Lensworth Finance Ltd. to try to ascertain whether these suggestions which had been put to us were correct. We learned that the dramatic figure of $1·5 million profit was made by Lensworth Finance Ltd., and our information was that there were secret partners who had expertise and contacts who could get them into the Housing Commission to set up these deals. It was the task of Lensworth Finance Ltd. to arrange the finance.

The management of Lensworth Finance Ltd. was very helpful. It was fairly clear that we had touched on a sensitive nerve; they did not say so in as many words, but when the blood drained from the faces of the officers when we mentioned certain names and figures, we assumed that we were correct. The honorable member for Knox and I had the arduous task of finding out who the secret partners were, and I am sorry to have to admit that after three months we have still not found all the secret partners. I sincerely hope Sir Gregory Gowans will be able to do so at the board of inquiry. We know that Mr. Kean was one of them, and it was under some pressure that Lensworth Finance Ltd. flushed out Mr. Kean. For four years the people of Victoria have been led to believe it was Lensworth which made this bonanza profit over what has been incorrectly called 20 days when in fact it was almost no days. Eventually after pressure was exerted to discover who were the secret partners, Lensworth relented. Lensworth Finance in Adelaide is the " establishment ". The idea of any smear on the "establishment" in that city could not be allowed to occur, so the company obviously contacted Mr. Kean and said, "Sorry, but you will have to come out into the open" and Mr. Kean accepted that he received $750,000.

The lengthy search next led to the Corporate Affairs Office where we tried to discover all the companies with which Mr. Kean was associated.


We did not receive much help concerning the people who took part in these ventures, but it would be interesting to read for the benefit of the House the names of some of the companies in which Mr. Kean has an interest. First of all there is Aulsebrook Holdings Pty. Ltd., a Kean family company; Aulsebrook (Victoria) Pty. Ltd., a Kean family company; Moore Williams & Son Pty. Ltd., a Kean family company with Aulsebrook (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. as shareholder; 12A a'Beckett Street Pty. Ltd. with Mr. Kean a director and Aulsebrook (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. a shareholder; Waxflower Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director; Loughnans Road Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director; Bell Waverley Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director and Aulsebrook (Vic.) Pty. Ltd., a shareholder; Tooraneedin Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director; Keanfam Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean as joint secretary; Corridel Estates Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director, and Gloster Way Pty. Ltd., with Mr. Kean a director.

I accept that there is nothing wrong with Mr. Kean being a director or shareholder of all of those companies, but the point I am trying to make is that we were trying to find out what happened to the amount of $750,000. We had been through Lensworth's books in Victoria. We went through Lensworth's books in Adelaide but could not find even there what happened to the $750,000. It is much harder to find what happened in their books because it is a big company. Quite simply, we were looking for an amount of $1· 5 million shared between Lensworth and Kean and that seemed a reasonable increase in one year, which should be easy to find, but we could not find a trace of it anywhere.

Furthermore, we could not find a trace of the amount in any of the companies in which Mr. Kean had an interest until we came across Corridel Estates Pty. Ltd. Apparently there are many joint venture agreements within the operations of companies and apparently these joint venture agreements are operated in various

Mr. Simpson.

areas. The people involved in these joint venture agreements are involved because it may be helpful when financing company operations. However, what concerns me is that there is no accountability of joint venture agreements. What happens is that a group of men do some paper work amongst themselves, having honour amongst themselves, and eventually when a deal is completed, they share out the profits of the joint venture agreement. In private companies there is nothing wrong with that, but when public moneys are concerned such as would be involved in Lensworth Finance (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. and public utilities, such as the Housing Commission of Victoria, it is absolutely essential that there be public accountability for joint venture agreements.

Possibly out of this whole sordid affair will come an amendment made to the Companies Act of 1961 to provide that when there are joint venture agreements, when secret partners are involved, the details must come out into the open. If this occurred, the dealings of McGregor Aulsebrook Kean would be public and those people who had invested money in public companies and who had money in public utilities by paying taxes which help finance the operations of the Housing Commission, would know precisely what had happened to their money. That is the first improvement which I hope will eventually come out of the inquiry.

Turning now to Corridel Estates Pty. Ltd., the only reason why this company came into existence was because Mr. Kean became very sick. I do not want to sound morbid, but Mr. Kean's partners were terrified that he was going to die. They may have been terribly fond of Mr. Kean, but I got the impression that they were more concerned about their money. Mr. Kean eventually assigned all of his joint venture agreements with Lensworth to Corridel Estates Pty. Ltd. This was the first documentation upon which we were


able to ascertain factual information about joint agreements and the names of the partners concerned.

Unfortunately, the largest single figure our research brought forth was a figure of only about $147,555. It was the largest figure we could find and the only large. amount which was collected at that time. Possibly, it was part of the amount of $750,000 which Mr. Kean was to have received as his share of the Goonawarra property sale. This did not fit in with what we had been led to understand about the division of the amount of $750,000. We were led to believe that there were three partners who were to receive $150,000 each but that there were also two others. What we have been able to establish is that there could be five secret partners involved. We now believe two other partners who were involved with Corridel Estates Pty. Ltd. were Mr. Enzo Minuzzo and Mr. Laurence Williams, but up to date we have not been successful in ascertaining the names of the other two partners who possibly shared the money receiving $150,000 each.

We were also told that there was an option of $2,000 an acre and a second option after the first option had expired in 1972. The second option was supposedly for $3,000 an acre and that was part of the reasoning behind the decision of the ValuerGeneral to make the recommended figure $3,400 an acre. Of course, as the honorable member for Knox clearly demonstrated, that second option of $3,000 per acre did not exist. We have the nonsensical situation of a valuer in the Valuer-General's Department saying that he had not sighted the option but he believed in the bona fides of it. As a result of that nonsense by the valuer, the Housing Commission paid $3,400 an acre for the property.

After some considerable time, and I suggest after some considerable pressure, the files became available to the Opposition. In fact, the files became available, as I recall reading it, to every member of this Parliament and every interested person.

However, I understand that no member of the Government saw fit to examine the files.

MR. WEIDEMAN: That is a lie.

Mr. SIMPSON: I stand corrected if that is the case. I am delighted to hear that some members of the Government party viewed the files. I shall wait with bated breath for the next honorable member from the Government side who follows me to support what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, the honorable members for Bundoora and Knox, and myself about the things missing from the files and the irregularities in those files. I am delighted to have heard the interjection and I shall wait for an honorable member to endorse what members of the Opposition have claimed, namely, that sections of the files are missing.

When we were in the office of the Minister of Housing and the Minister came across the section which began, "pursuant to my instructions " was missing-at the time the honorable member for Bundoora and the member representing the Doutta Galla Province in another place were present-we asked, "Is this why you called in the police?" The Minister' replied, cc It was a contributing factor why I called in the police and it has caused me some disquiet." To his credit, the Minister called in the police because he was so concerned about what was missing from the file and some of the irregularities that I have mentioned.

The memorandum that we read was signed by W. Creighton, who was the Property Control Manager for the Housing Commission. The Minister told us that he had had personal control of the files since May of this year. The files were made available to the Opposition in August. It seems extraordinary that, in answer to requests by the then Leader of the Opposition, the honorable member for Richmond, the Minister said that he could not let the Opposition have a look a the files because he was too busy with them himself.


Mr. Cox: What is wrong with that?

Mr. SIMPSON: After four months, one would have thought that the Opposition would have been able to see the files earlier than August. At last, the Opposition was able to view the files and the memorandum by Mr. Creighton, who could have helped us ascertain where the missing papers were. I asked the Minister whether he had contacted Mr. Creighton, who no longer works with the Housing Commissison but is with the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation. The Minister had previously said that he had worked day and night and had given up practically every week-end going over the files. The first logical thing that came into the mind of the honorable member for Bundoora, the Honorable D. R. White, M.L.C. and myself was to ring up Mr. Creighton to ask whether he knew where the missing papers were. However, the Minister did not think of this.

Events surrounding attempts to rezone the area at Sunbury are quite outstanding. In 1973, three objections to the zoning were lodged with the Board of Works and, strangely, one was from Lensworth Finance (Victoria) pty. Ltd., one from Mr. McMahon, the owner of the property and one from Mr. Burgis who owned an adjoining property which eventually was sold to the Housing Commission. Those three organizations or people objected to the planning scheme because they wanted the Goonawarra area rezoned as reserved living. After two long years, the Board of Works came down with the decision not to rezone the land.

Tonight, honorable members have heard some rather grand schemes as to how this development is going to take place under a joint agreement between private enterprise and the Housing Commission. However, the area has not been rezoned and, as recently as 1975, the Board of Works refused a rezoning application. Almost the only way in which the area can be rezoned is by a decision of the

Minister. Any such decision would be contrary to the planning scheme, the concepts of planning and expert advice from the Board of Works. The only way for the development to take place is for the Minister to act contrary to that advice; the honorable gentleman will be a brave man if he takes this action.

The same sort of situation applies at Pakenham where an amendment would have to be made to rezone the land as residential. Evidence has been given to the board of inquiry by a highly qualified officer of the board that any such rezoning would not be in the best interests of the concept of the Government's policies. Apparently, the Pakenham development will be limited because of the existence of flood-prone areas, a lily pond and a quarry. Again, any such development will almost certainly have to result from a decision by the Minister.

Finally, I come to the third area at Melton. This is a rather interesting matter because it demonstrates the conflict between two Ministers in 1973. I have received information from a most reliable source--it will emerge if I am wrong-that there was a shouting match between the two Ministers in front of several officers about what was occurring at Melton. Apparently, the then Minister of Housing in 1973 won the shouting match. I have obtained certain information from the files and from information volunteered to me.

Mr. RAMSAV: By whom? Mr. SIMPSON: The same informa

tion that fell off the back of a truck about Vapold Pty. Ltd. The information is reliable and accurate, but the informant wants to remain anonymous. At Melton, three parcels of land were involved. Before the third one emerged, the two were one area south of the highway and one area to the north. An instruction was issued for a valuer to visit the two areas and provide a valuation. The areas were similar in size, although, as a layman, I felt that the area to the south may have had some advantages.


I have inspected all three parcels of land and I consider that the area to the south has some advantages because it is close to the railway line and not so far from the major shopping centre. However, this was a matter for the experts and they were told to view these two areas.

On the next day, an instruction came directly from the Minister that the valuer was not to look at parcel No. 1, the area on the south side of the highway, but that he should inspect only the area on the north and also an area to the west, which happens to be the parcel of land put together by Messrs. Cooke and Leake through Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. Surprisingly, this is apparently when the shouting match occurred between the two Ministers, which the then Minister of Housing, the present Chief Secretary, won. Eventually, the area that was farthest from the town, was ultimately selected, against the early recommendation of the commission.

I have spoken with numerous farmers who have sold their property and they were quite surprised when they found out that the property had been purchased by a company called Welmac Pty. Ltd. because the contracts of sale that they had signed had been with Nationwide Finance Pty. Ltd., CopperCone Pty. Ltd. and Kampala Pty. Ltd., but eventually they all finished up with Welmac Pty. Ltd. In the sale to the Housing Commission, Welmac Pty. Ltd. made a larger profit than that obtained by the total figures of the farmers.

I make it quite clear that the farmers are not disappointed with the price that they received. I have not yet struck a farmer who was disappointed with the price obtained, but what they were really dirty on was that they did not get the profits obtained by Welmac and Lensworth Finance, that they were not able to sell direct to the Housing Commission. At the time, prices for farming land were quite depressed and they were not complaining about the prices that they received. I am surprised that the Housing Commission would

use Dillon and Inkster as agents. I cannot understand why the Housing Commission does not do its own buying of land.

One of the farm owners put his land on the market for sale at auction approximately six months earlier and he did not get one bid. He then took his parcel of land to the Housing Commission. He got no takers at the commission. It was not interested in his land. A few weeks later there was a knock on his door by Mr. Colin Cooke and the conversation was along the lines: "I believe you have some farm land for sale. I am more than interested in buying it. "

I shall quote precisely what the Premier was saying in September, 1973, when all this buying was going on and all this money was being expended. On 19th September, 1973, the Premier said-

The State Government will release 13,000 new building blocks near Melbourne in a major effort to contain Victoria's spiralling land prices.

The Premier said the Housing Commission was now spending $8 million on special land purchases. They were certainly special land purchases. The article continues-

He said $2 million already had been spent in buying 832 acres at Pakenham. This would provide about 2,600 blocks. The massive amount of $11 million was expended. Where are all these blocks that the Premier referred to in September, 1973? There have been no subdivisions, no land zoned for housing and no houses built. It is a disgrace and the amendment should be carried.

Mr. HUDSON (Werribee): I wonder what all that Kean family history and all the useless figures quoted by the honorable member have to do with the real issue that the Opposition is trying to prove. The Opposition is trying to prove that the Housing Commission paid too much for the land and that it was wrong for the Housing Commission to allow the vendors to make a profit at the commission's expense. I am disgusted at the allegations and the untrue


statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Niddrie. While it is fresh in my memory I point out to the honorable member for Niddrie that he has endeavoured to confuse the House by saying that the farmers who were involved in the land purchase deal at Melton did not deal with Welmac. One of the five properties was purchased previously by Nationwide Finance Ltd., the remainder were purchased by Welmac from the farmers.

Mr. SIMPSON: That is not true. Mr. HUDSON: The honorable mem

ber for Niddrie does not even want to hear the truth. The situation is that Welmac is a development company that was formed between Lewis Land Corporation and Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd. The first three letters that comprise Welmac are from Lewis Land Corporation and the last three from Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd. They engaged Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. as their agents to purchase land and to make a sensible parcel of land to develop. Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. started that development in 1972.

Mr. FORDHAM: Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. is Leake and Cooke.

Mr. HUDSON: Yes. In 1972 they started to accumulate the land for Welmac. Little by little they purchased parcels of land for Welmac in Welmac's name so that Welmac owned the whole of that land before the Housing Commission entered into the deal. The Opposition is endeavouring to tie up N andina Investments Pty. Ltd., Leake and Cooke and everybody else with a straightforward sale between the Housing Commission and Welmac, one owner of one piece of land.

I was not impressed with the confusion created and the repetition of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He endeavoured to confuse and mislead the House. He talked about this parcel of land of 1,263 acres. He said, and he must agree with me, that Nandina Invest-

ments Pty. Ltd. purchased 1,263 acres of land, some of which it bought in December, 1973, and January, 1974. He also said that the same 1,263 acres were sold to the Housing Commission by Welmac at a profit of $2 ·8 million, this was a pretty good profit in eighteen months because the company paid $1· 8 million for it.

That same parcel of land that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about was purchased by Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. in 1972 and 1973. The Leader of the Opposition also said that that land was bought by Welmac one week before the Housing Commission paid for it. That was a deliberate distortion of fact. It is definitely untrue. What actually happened was that in May, 1972, Nandina Investments Pty. Ltd. approached the Robinson family to sell their property. This property is in my electorate and unlike many members of the Opposition I take an interest in what goes on in my electorate.

Mr. FORDHAM: You will not have to worry about that much longer.

Mr. HUDSON: That remains to be seen. In July, 1973, an offer of $2,000 an acre was made to Max and Lindsay Robinson for their land. That is the land referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. On that date the offer was accepted and in September the contracts of sale for the Robinson property were exchanged. The Housing Commission's purchase did not commence until much later, and yet the Leader of the Opposition tries to tell the House that Welmac purchased that land only one week before the Housing Commission paid for it. What it did was make a final payment one week before.

All the properties put together by Welmac Pty. Ltd. were purchased on terms contracts and the conditions of sale to the Housing Commission took that into account. The terms of that sale were 10 per cent deposit, 40 per cent within 60 days and the balance of 50 per cent by 31st August, 1974. Those terms were agreed to because the Housing Commission did not need the land immediately and because it was necessary, so the title for the


final purchase by the Housing Commission would be in order, for the original terms contracts to be renegotiated to cash contracts. When the last of those, that for the Robinson land, was negotiated, the title was free and the Housing Commission paid its money.

It is in those ways that the Opposition is attempting to confuse the issue and mislead honorable members completely. All the Opposition is really concerned about here is the price paid for the land, the profit made and some alleged corruption that it is trying to prove.

In the early 1970s I noticed that there was a land boom and I purchased land. I am not afraid to admit that I purchased four blocks of land on a terms contract for $2,200. I sold them just less than two years later for $5,000 and I made almost 250 per cent profit. Was I corrupt in doing that? I venture to suggest that some members of the Opposition bought land in those boom times and sold it at a profit. Were they corrupt, or was that 'a bad decision? Were they profiteering in the same way that they have suggested occurred in these transactions? Of course they were not. If none of them bought land at that time it was because they had no sense of business. It certainly would not be on a matter of principle.

If I had had more money at that time I would have purchased broad acres because I could see as well as anyone else that land prices were rising. I would have been able to sell those broad acres at a high profit. Would I have been corrupt in doing so? No, not at all. How can members of the OppOSition say that Welmac was not entitled to its profit? Of course it was.

The Opposition is endeavouring to imply that there was no risk and no gamble but if one looks at the companies which purchased land at high prices in the Melton, Sunbury, Werribee area and are now selling that land at rural prices the risks are obvious; yet the Opposition has the temerity to suggest that We1mac did

not take a risk. It took the same risk as any other company, as is obvious from the fact that one of the partners in that company, Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd., took risks and lost. I t is now bankrupt.

The Opposition suggests that the Valuer-General's Department in some way rigged the valuations. That is a terrible accusation. The Valuation of Land Act of 1960 clearly indicates that the potential of land must be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation. When the Housing Commission purchases land it is not acting as a speculator, it is acting as a developer, because it is buying the land for development into residential properties. The Valuer-General is not dumb; he has the gumption to realize that the land will be developed into residental property and if he is to value the land on the basis of its potential he must value it as a residential proposition.

The Opposition has suggested that the Housing Commission should acquire land compulsorily. I can remember occasions during the time of the Dunstan and Cain Governments when the Housing Commission acquired land for prices below those paid by the people from whom the land was acquired. I can even quote a personal example. My parents purchased a block of land on a small deposit and gave it to me on my eighteenth birthday on the condition that I paid the remaining purchase price at ten shillings a week. Shortly after that I joined the Air Force and made an allotment to my mother, part of which was to pay that ten shillings a week. While I was overseas the Housing Commission acquired my block of land for less than the original purchase price and I had no say in that whatsoever. That occurred when a Labor Government was in office. The Opposition wants the same sort of system to operate now.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! The hanorable member for Ascot Vale will cease interjecting. I made the appeal before and I will not continue appealing.


Mr. HUDSON: Once the Liberal Government took over-it has been in office for many years and will stay in government for many more years -it changed that policy. It was not prepared to rob the people blind by compulsorily acquiring land unless it paid fail'lly for it. The Liberal Government formed policies so that land would be purchased by negotiation at market value. Since then the Housing Commission and the Government have done that in purchases of land and will continue to do so. Why should a Government set itself up as a robber of the people? Why should a Government not pay market value in the same way that anybody else is required to pay?

I said that I know something about the Melton land purchase. I know the value of land which was purchased in the corridor zone. Perhaps members of the Opposition are unaware of what a corridor zone is. In the land boom period the value of any land that was zoned as corridor under amendment 3 of the Board of Works planning scheme shot up enormously, and millionaires were made overnight. I can name many persons in the Werribee corridor who became millionaires.

The value of land is based on market value. The Leader of the Opposition said that what Welmac Pty. Ltd. paid per acre for all parcels of land and for one parcel of Robinson's land was about half what the Housing ~ommission paid for it. However, he did not mention that in changing the terms contract with the property owners in Melton, some difficulty arose with one property. A farmer who sold property on a terms contract wanted to stick to the contract because he wanted to farm the land for a few more years and did not want to lose the price on it. He was paid $4,000 an acre for his land.

On the one hand the Leader of the Opposition said that the GO'Vernment paid far more to one farmer and yet in fact they had paid far less to another. For the whole parcel of land the Government paid more than Wel-

mac Pty. Ltd., but it might be said that $4,000 an ac're should have been the value of that I'and.

MR. Ross-EDWARDS: How many acres were in that piece?

Mr. HUDSON: One hundred and sixty acres. It shows why, in these transactions, the distorted figures that are presented by the Opposition are not necessarily correct. What has been said about the Melton deal is a load of garbage. This was corridor land and purchased at a fair and reasonable price.

The sitting was suspended at 12.16 a.m. until 12.48 a.m.

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum): It is probably appropriate that the Government should call upon the honorable member for Werribee-I believe he is an expert in cleaning clothes-to clean up this mess. All he succeeded in proving was that he and other people in the community are prepared to jack up the price of land to squeeze the maximum they can obtain from the market to the discomfort of everybody else in the community.

During question time this afternoon honorable members were told that as a result of certain police investigations an inquiry has been set up. However, what facts have honorable members been told? What facts did that police inquiry discover? If the Westminster system of Government means anything, in this debate the Ministers should have stated the facts that led to the inquiry. Instead, the House has heard nothing from the Government in reply to the catalogue of facts set out by Opposition spokesmen.

One thing has clearly emerged during the debate: The Government and the Ministers will not accept responsibility for the improper and questionable acts that have been catalogued by members of the Opposition. The responsibility for questionable valuations and questionable procedures rests with the Government, with Cabinet members and with the Premier and Treasurer of this State. They cannot hide behind others and behind


public servants. They authorized the deals; they signed the cheques; they signed the papers.

The Premier has tried to suggest that there is fair and proper zoning and that the Housing Commission had an obligation to pay a fair and reasonable price which was set by the Valuer-General. That argument is a bit too neat. It ignores the vital facts that members of the Opposition have presented tonight. For example, the House has not yet heard the facts behind the missing memorandum. It is a straightforward point of Government administration. The memorandum dated 9th August, 1973, from the Valuer-General, Mr. L. J. O'Bree, stated-

Pursuant to your instructions the valuation would be $3·5 million. That indicated prior knowledge of the land being rezoned residential. According to the Age of 13th August, even the Minister of Housing was right to seek the whereabouts of that memorandum. Who made that request and ordered that the valuation should proceed according to that request?

At the beginning of this sessional period the Minister of Housing made a Ministerial statement and by doing so he avoided having to reply to the Opposition's proposed motion of want of confidence in the Government because of the concern that exists in the community about the questionable actions that have been taken by the Government. It was a shabby manreuvre to make a Ministerial statement in an attempt to head off a want-of-confidence motion.

The Premier also said and accepted that the Housing Commission buys land at inflated values. The honorable gentleman stated that the commission must buy land at current residential prices rather that at prices which apply to broad acres for far,ming. If the Government of Victoria was prepared to buy land at rural prices, zoned as broad acres, that would be a positive step in reducing the price of a house, which is rapidly becoming beyond the means of the average pur-chaser in the community. .

As one read or listened to the statement by the Minister of Housing-a pathetic document filled with vague generalizations that have no relationship to the facts presented by the Opposition----one found principles on which all honorable members can agree. One principle is how important it is for every Australian family to have the right to own its own piece of Australia. The Opposition believes in that principle. However, when listening to Government supporters tonight one would not believe that the ability to purchase a home and block of land is beyond a young married couple. A statement in the Age of 2nd September, 1977, reads-

Young couples on average incomes now face a home building deposit gap of at least $15,000.

That makes it almost impossible for the average couple to buy their own home. What is the Government doing? Is it attempting to reduce the price of land and assist young couples to purchase a home and realize their dreams by competing against the developers, as the South Australian Government is? Not at all.

All one heard were vague principles about how the Victorian Government has the same aspirations as everybody else in the community. The Opposition tonight made a number of very serious accusations.

Mr. SCANLAN: Without any facts or back-up information.

Mr. CATHIE: The Minister of Special Education says that there are no facts to back it up. I do not know where he was when the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable members for Knox and Niddrie were speaking.

The OppOSition has shown clearly tonight that there has been a monumental waste of public money. It has shown that a group of individuals and companies created false prices and manipulated valuations to push profits into their own pockets. The Opposition has shown that developers and their hangers-on have squeezed


from public funds $4· 5 million. That ~oney ca~e f~om the taxpayers and IS now gomg Into private pockets.

The Opposition has pointed out that there has been no adequate examination of the suitability for residential develpment of land which the Housing Commission purchased at Melton, Sunbury and Pakenham. It has shown that ambiguity and confusion 'exist about the roles of some of the principals in these events, such as Dillon and Inkster Real Estate Pty. Ltd., whose name appears to be everywhere. Even at this late stage of the debate honorable members have not been told on whose advice that firm was acting, whether on behalf of the Housing Commission, developers or private landowners who wished to sell.

It comes back to Ministerial responsibility. The Liberal Party often makes a great deal about who is running the State. The State Government of Victoria is running this State. This matter is its responsibility because it signed the documents and agreed with what was going on. There is general concern throughout the community, and a report in the Australian of 16th August last pointed out that the land deals could well threaten plans of the Fraser Government to hold an election before the end of the year. The article stated-

The Federal Liberal Party's strategy concerning the continued allegations of Victorian Government involvement in land deals could upset preliminary plans for an early Federal election. I shall summarize again the key accusations made by the Opposition. A relatively large amount of public money was spent in a comparatively short time to buy land at inflated prices of more than $10 million. The Opposition has shown that no development of that land has taken place in the four years since that time. The Opposition has asked who instructed the Valuer-General to value that land at residential prices and to anticipate urban zoning, because urban zoning has still not yet been obtained.

Mr. Cathie.

The Opposition then suggested that each of the community's questionable purchases should be examined and that the responsibility for them should come back to the Government. Cows are now grazing on acres of land that was bought four years ago for residential development. There has been no answer from the Government or senior Cabinet Ministers to the allegations that the Opposition has presented in Parliament. One has not yet seen the practice of Ministerial responsibility that must be shared by the Cabinet for the events that have been described so adequately by the honorable member for Bundoora.

It is time the Parliament was treated properly, and the serious allegations that have been made tonight deserve an answer here in this Parliament now.

Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): An interesting debate has taken place on the Ministerial statement this evening. That statement embraced a number of topics, and I shall refer to some which have been raised.

I assume that most honorable members agree with the Government's policy directive of providing maximum opportunity for people to own their own homes as they wish. There has been no argument against it, and it has received confirmation from the Opposition. Apparently honorable members also agree with the Government's decentralization policy, although understandably the National Party would wish the Government to go further than it has gone so far, particularly with respect to housing in rural Victoria, but a balance needs to be effected. As I mentioned before, there is already an imbalance in favour of rural Victoria. As the Leader of the National Party says by interjection, that is part of our policy, and it has been exemplified recently through co-operative housing allocations, which again were quite disproportionate to those in the metropolitan area. This occurs in terms of Housing Co m-


mISSion expendi ture throughout Victoria, and I gather again that that is reasonably acceptable.

I described to the House the situation of the building programme at the end of this financial year, and this also mirrors the Government's wish to place strong emphasis on rural Victoria in comparison with metropolitan areas. No discussion occurred on that topic that I noticed.

The Government raised the topic of the Urban Land Council, and that was hardly touched on, although the Government has at least explained the Housing Commission's function in the council's activity. It has described lots held, lots under production and so on.

I was somewhat interested to note that no comments were made on the commission's new thrust into the area of social infrastructure in the provision of primary and pre-schools. These are well spread in terms of a metropolitan versus rural bias. I would have expected some comment to have been made on that matter because some honorable members may take the view that housing needs, whether they come from the current agreement or otherwise, might be better served by providing total shelter rather than the type of infrastructure I mentioned earlier. However, that has not been touched upon.

The commission this year will be maximizing its expenditure on bricks and mortar, with one or two exceptions which I mentioned. Some land needs to be bought to back up the Government's policy on decentralization, particularly for housing in places like Geelong, and those purchases will follow.

Most of the debate seems to have dealt with the topics currently being considered by a quite properly appointed board of inquiry. When I read the Ministerial statement, I did suggest to the House that it might be appropriate not to delve in too much detail as there is an independent board of inquiry at work. That point

Session 1977.-317

was acknowledged by some honorable members, but quite frankly it is a pity that advantage was taken of the privileges of the House to a greater extent than the Government wished, not to present embarrassment of me, but in a sense of propriety to the board of inquiry. However, that has happened and so be it.

There will be further opportunities later in the sessional period for discussion on some of the topics raised. It is not the intention of the Government at the moment to embark on a debate on those topics other than to make this acknowledgment.

The amendment moved by the Opposition, which I gather is still supported by the National Party, is that arising out of the contents of the statement the Government no longer possesses the confidenc~ of the House. I should have thought the Ministerial statement afforded some comfort to some corners of the House. Apparently it does not and the Government must accept that judgment and bear it in mind in due course. The Government will vote against the amendment and in favour of the motion.

The House divided on Mr. Wilkes's amendment (Sir Kenneth Wheeler in the chair)-

Ayes 27 Noes 47

Majority against the amendment 20

AyES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Cain Mr. Crabb Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Fogarty Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jasper Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lind Mr. McInnes

Mr. Mutton Mr. Roper Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds Mr. Simpson Mr. Stirling Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton

Tellers: Mr. Cathie Mr. Culpin

9154 Papers. [ASSEMBLY.] Papers.

Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Burgin Mr. Coleman Mr. Cox Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Ebery Mr. Evans

NOES.

Mr. Mackinnon Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mrs. Patrick Mr. Plowman Mr. Rafferty Mr. Ramsay Mr. Richardson Mr. Scanlan Mr. Skeggs Mr. Smith

(South Barwon) Mr. Smith

(Ballarat North) Mr. Guy

( Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Mr. Templeton Mr. Thompson Mr. Vale

Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Hudson Mr. Jona Mr. Lacy Mr. Ueberman Mr. Loxton Mr. McArthur Mr. McCabe Mr. McClure Mr. McKellar

Mr. Weideman Mr. Williams Mr. Wood

Tellers: Mr. Gude Mr. Kennett

PAIRS. Mr. Doube Mr. Collins Mr. Hann Mr. Francis


COMMAND PAPERS. Mr. MACLELLAN (Minister of

Labour and Industry) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, the report of the Supreme Court Judges for the year 1976.


Mr. DIXON (Minister for Social Welfare) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, the reports of the Parole Boards (Youth) for the year 1975-76.

It was ordered that the reports be laid on the table and be printed.

PAPERS. The following papers, pursuant to

the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid on the table by the Clerk-Cemeteries Act 1958-Certificate of the

Minister of Health relating to the purchase of certain lands for the Traralgon Public Cemetery.

Country Fire' Authority-Report for the year 1975-76.

Crimes Compensation Tribunal-Report for the year 1976-77.

Dairy Industry in Victoria-Order in Council sanctioning maximum expenditure of

the Board of Inquiry into the Dairy Industry in Victoria.

Education Act 1955-Resumption of Land at Corio North, Riddells Creek and Trafalgar-Certificates of the Minister of Education (three papers).

Egg Industry Stabilization Act 1973-Report of the Poultry Farmer Licensing Committee for the year ended 28th February, 1977.

Exhibition Trustees-Report for the year 1976-77.

Geelong Harbor Trust CommissionersStatement of accounts for the year 1976.

Groundwater Advisory Committee-Report for the year 1975.

Land Conservation Council-Report for the period ended 30th June, 1975.-Ordered to be printed.

La Trobe University-Report of the Council for the year 1976; together with statutes approved by the Governor in Council during the year 1976.

La,w Reform Commissioner-Report for the year 1976-77.-Ordered to be printed.

Marketing of Primary Products Act 1955-Proclamation declaring that chioory shall

become the property of the Chicory Marketing Board for the period from the 20th June, 1977, to the 19th June, 1978.

Proclamation declaring that eggs shall become the property of the Victorian Egg Marketing Board for a further period of two years.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works-Order in Council sanctioning the maximum expenditure of the Board of Inquiry into the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.

Melbourne University-Statement of accounts for the year 1975.

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board-Report for the year 1975-76.

Motor Vehicle Accident CompensationOrder in Council sanctioning a maximum expenditure by the Board of Inquiry into motor vehicle accident compensation.

Parliamentary Officers Act 1975-Statements of appointments and altera

tions of classification-Department of the Legislative Assem

bly. 'Department of the Legislative Council. Department of the Legislative Council

and Legislative Assembly House Committee.

Department of the Library. Department of the Reporting Staff of

the Victorian Parliamentary Debates. Statement of persons temporarily em

ployed-Department of the Legislative Assem

bly. Department of the Legislative Council. Department of the Legislative Council

and Legislative Assembly House Committee.

Department of the Library. Department of the Reporting Staff of

the Victorian Parliamentary Debates.

Papers. [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Papers. 9155

Parole Boards (Adult)-Reports for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975---76 (three papers) .-Severally ordered to be printed.

Police Regulation Act 1958--Determinations Nos. 273 to 276 of the Police Service Board (four papers).

Railways Act 1958--Report of the Victorian Railways Board for the quarter ended 31 st March, 1977.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1959-General Abstract of the number of live births, still-births, deaths and marriages in Victoria for the year 1976.

River Murray Commission-Report for the year 1975---76.

State College of Victoria-Statement of accounts of constituent colleges for the year 1975; together with statutes approved by the Governor in Council during 1975.

Statutory Rules under the followin~ ActsAgricultural Education CadetshIps Act

1969-No. 94. Bail Act 1977-No. 180. Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act 1970-

Nos. 215, 217, 218. Building Societies Act 1976-No. 145. Cemeteries Act 1958-No. 167. Children's Court Act 1973-No. 157. Consumer Affairs Act 1972-No. 85. Country Fire Authority Act 1958-Nos.

115, lOO. County Court Act 1958-No. 112. Crown Proceedings Act 1958-No. 155. Dentists Act 1972-No. 166. Dietitians Registration Act 1958-No. 216. Dried Fruits Act 1958-No. 129. Explosives Act I~No. 156. Fisheries Act 1968--Nos. 84, 130, 131, 132,

133. Forests Act 1958-Nos. 82, 116. Friendly Societies Act 1958-No. 214. Grain Elevators Act 1958-Nos. 125 to

128, 138, 139, 182. Health Act 1958-Nos. 96, 101, 136, 164,

165, 168 to 174, In, 178, 185, 202, 225. Housing Act 1958-No. 88. Industrial Training Act 1975-Nos. 86, 122,

142, 151, 159 to 163, 184. Labour and Industry Act 1958-No. 100. Land Surveyors Act 1958-No. 197. Legal Profession Practice Act 1958-No.

224. Lifts and Cranes Act 1967-Nos. 87, 144,

219, 220. Uquor Control Act 1965-Nos. 152, 209. Local Government Act 1958-No. 176. Lotteries Gaming and Betting Act 1966-

Nos. 175, 201. Magistrates' Courts Act 1971, the Magis

trates (Summary Proceedings) Act 1975, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1958-No. 181.

Magistrates (Summary Proceedings) Act 1975-No. 158.

M_Brine Act 1958-Nos. 105, lll, 118 to 120, 205 to 207, 226 to 231.

-Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act 19s9......;.Nos. 81,' 99, 146, 147, 203.

Melbourne Harbor Trust Act 1958-No. 104.

Mental Health Act 1959-Nos. 108, 179, 183, 186, 187.

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Superannua-tion Act 1976-Nos. 93, 97, 124, 193.

Milk Board Act 1958-No. 109. Motor Car Act 1958-Nos. 102, 117, 134. Pipelines Act 1967-No. 199. Poisons Act 1962-Nos. 135, 200. Police Offences Act 1958-No. 208. Police Regulation Act 1958-Nos. 140, 194. Portland Harbor Trust Act 1958-No. 143. Private Agents Act 1966-Nos. lOO, 232. Protection of Animals Act 1966-No. 212. Public Records Act 1973-No. 211. Public Service Act 1974-Nos. 79, 80, 90 to

92, 103, 107, 110, 148, 154, 204, 233, 234, PSD Nos. 38 to 84.

Racing Act 1958-No. 98. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marri

ages Act 1959-No. 210. Road Traffic Act I 958-No. 121. Rural F'mance and Settlement Commission

Act 1 00 I-No. 223. Scaffolding Act 1971-Nos. 221, 222. Second-hand Dealers Act 1958-Nos. 113,

114, 191, 192. Seeds Act 1971-No. ISO. Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973-No. 89. State Electricity Co.mmission Act 1958-

No. 198. State Rivers and Water Supply Commis

sion (Special Projects) Act l009-No. 78.

Supreme Court Act 1958 and the Companies Act 1961-No. 106.

Teaching Service Act 1958-No. 195. Town and Country Planning Act 1961-

Nos. 188, 189. Transport Regulation Act 1958-No. 137. Transport Regulation Act 1958 and the

Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958-No. 60.

Valuation of Land Act 196O-Nos. 123, 153.

Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act 1958-No. 149.

Water Act 1958-Nos. 141, 213. West Moorabool Water Board Act 1968-

No. 83. Wild Flowers and Native Plants Protection

Act 1958-No. 95. Teaching Service Act 1958-

Teaching Service-Primary Schools Division (Classification, Salaries, and Allowances) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 417).

Teaching Service-Professional (Classification, Salaries and Allowances) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 416).

Teaching Service-Secondary Schools Division (Classification, Sal:aries, and Allowances) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 418).

Teaching Service (Teachers Tribunal) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 415).

Teaching Service--Technical Schools Division (Classification, Salaries, and Allowances ) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 419).

9156 Papers. [ASSEMBLY.] Papers.

Town and Country Planning Act 1961-Bacchus Marsh Planning Scheme, Amend

ment Nos. 6, Part 1 ,and 8 (two papers).

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966, Amendment No. "A".

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966 (Borough of Sebastopol), Amendment No. 7, 1977.

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966 (City of Ballaarat), Amendment Nos. 15, 1975; 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 1976 (seven papers).

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966 (Shire of Ballarat), Amendment No. 6, 1976.

Ballaarat and District Planning Scheme 1966 (Shire of Buninyong), Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 (two papers).

City of Benalla Planning Scheme, Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 16 (three papers).

City of Bendigo Planning Scheme 1970, Amendment No. 25.

City of Croydon Planning Scheme 1961, Amendment Nos. 69 and 70 (two papers).

City of Echuca Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 24, 1974 and 29, 1976 (two papers).

City of Frankston Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 12 and 13 (two papers).

City of Horsham Pl,anning Scheme 1973, Amendment Nos. 30, 1976 and 32 (two papers).

City of Knox Planning Scheme 1965, Amendment Nos. 162 to 164, 169, 170, 172, and 174, 1976 (seven papers).

City of Sale Planning Scheme. Cranbourne Planning Scheme 1960,

(Amendment Nos. 13, 1975; 21, 1976; 24 and 26 (four papers).

Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme 1959, (Shire of Mansfield), Amendment No. 22, 1976.

Eppalock Planning Scheme, Amendment "A".

Lome Planning Scheme. Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme,

Amendment Nos. 56-Part 2A, 62-Part 4, 6S-Part I, 7O-Part 2, 74, and 78 (six papers).

Morwell Planning Scheme 1954, Amendment No. 50, Part 1, 1975.

Phillip Island Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. IB and le (two papers).

Port Fairy Planning Scheme 1959, Amendment No. 3, 1976 and Metric Conversion Amendment 1975 (two papers).

Portland Planning Scheme 1957, Amendment No. 18, 1976-Part 2.

Rochester Township Planning Scheme, Amendment No. 6.

Seymour Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 18 and 28 (two papers).

Shire of Alberton (Coastal) Planning Scheme, Amendment No. 11, Part 1.

Shire of Arapiles (Horsham Boundary) Planning Scheme, Amendment No. 2.

Shire of Bulla Planning Scheme 1959, Amendment No. 58, 1977.

Shire of Flinders Planning Scheme 1962, Amendment Nos. 86 and 88, 1976 (two ,{>apers).

ShIre of Kilmore Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 8, 1976 and 23 (two ,{>apers).

ShIre of Korumburra Planning Scheme. Shire of Lillydale Planning Scheme 1958,

Amendment No. 70, 1976. Shire of Mornington Planning Scheme

1959, Amendment Nos. 80, 1972 and 107, 1976 (two pa~rs).

Shire of Portland (Heywood) Planning Scheme.

Shire of Rosedale Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 3, 1976-Part I, 4, 1976 and 5 (three papers).

Shire of Sherbrooke Planning Scheme 1965, Amendments Nos. 85, 1975 and 104 (two papers).

Shire of Tambo (Lakes Entrance) Planning Scheme, Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 (two papers).

Shire of Werribee Planning Scheme 1963, Amendment No. 43, 1976.

Shire of Woorayl Planning Scheme, Amendment Nos. 22, 1975 and 27 (two papers).

Town of Bairnsdale Planning Scheme. Town of Kyabram Planning Scheme,

Amendment No. 18. Town of Stawell Planning Scheme 1963,

Amendment No. 11, 1975. Wangaratta Sub-Regional Planning

Scheme. Workers Compensation-Order in Council

sanctioning the maximum expenditure of the Board of Inquiry into Workers Compensation.

JOINT SITI'ING OF PARLIAMENT. STATE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA SENATE:

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY COUNCIL: MONASH UNIVERSITY COUNCIL.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): I have received the following communications, dated 1st September, 1977, from the Minister of Education-

Pursuant to the provisions of section 43 of the State College of Victoria Act 1972. a Proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette on 13 July, 1977, fixed Monday, 14 November, 1977, as the day on which .the Senate of the State College of Victoria is to be duly constituted. In the meantime the State College has been administered by an Interim Senate, three members of which-the Hon. H. R. Ward, M.L.C., the Hon. B. P. Dunn, M.L.C. and Mr. B. O. Jones, M.P.-were recommended for appointment by the Parliament under the provisions of section 45 of the Act.

Section 7 of the Act provides that three members of the Senate shall be members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sitting of members of the Legislative

Joint Sitting [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] of Parliament. 9157

Council and the Legislative Assembly con~ ducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the Members at the sitting, and I should be grateful if you could arrange for a joint sitting to recommend three Members for appointment to the senate for the four year term commencing on 14 November, 1977.

I have addressed a similar letter to the President of the Legislative Council.

Your sincerely, L. H. S. THOMPSON,

Minister of Education. Pursuant to the provisions of section 39

of the Deakin University Act 1974, a Proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette on 24th November, 1976, fixed Sunday, 1 January, 1978, as the day on which the Council of the University is to be duly constituted. In the meantime the university has been administered by an Interim Senate under the provisions of section 41 of the Act.

Section 7 of the Act provides that three members of the council shall be members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sttting of members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly conducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the members at the sitting, and I should be grateful if you could arrange for a joint sitting to recommend three members for appointment to the council for the four~ year term commencing on 1 January, 1978.



Minister of Education. Section 7 of the Monash University Act

1958 provides that three members of the Council of the University shall be members of the Parliament of Victoria who have been recommended for appointment by a joint sitting of members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly conducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by the members present at the sitting.

The Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, M.L.C. who was appointed to the council for the four year term ending 11th December, 1979 has resigned from the council on the advice of his doctor and I should be grateful if you could arrange a joint sitting to recommend a member to replace him.


Yours Sincerely, L. H. S. THOMPSON,

Minister of Education.

A message was received from the Legislative Council acquainting the Legislative Assembly that the Legislative Council has agreed to meet the

Legislative Assembly for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Senate of the State College of Victoria, to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Deakin University and to choose a member of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University, and the Legislative Council requested the Legislative Assembly to name the place and time of such meeting.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education): Pursuant to that trio of communications, I move--

That the messages be taken into consideration tomorrow.

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray): As I indicated to the Premier before this session resumed, the Opposition is in a similar situation with a number of its members on educational bodies. To avoid the need for a further joint sitting within a short period of time, it would be preferable if this joint sitting could be delayed for one week.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) (By leave): In our usual co-operative style, there will be no problems.


BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO HOUSING COMMISSION LAND

PURCHASES.

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray): By leave, I move--

That leave be given to members of the Legislative Assembly to attend, if they think fit, as witnesses before the Board of Inquiry into Housing Commission Land Purchases at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton.

Mr. RAMSAY (Balwyn): I second the motion.


9158 Committees (Attendance [ASSEMBLY.] Fees) Bill.

COMMI'ITEES (ATTENDANCE FEES) BILL

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler) announced the presentation of a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Committees (Attendance Fees) Bill.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) , pursuant to Standing Order No. 169, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, to amend the Public Works Committee Act 1958, to alter the method of determining attendance fees and for other purposes.


a first time.

EPWORTH HOSPITAL (GUARANTEE) (AMENDMENT)

BILL The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth

Wheeler) announced the presentation of a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an ap:propriation be made from the Con'soli dated Fund for :the purposes of the Epworth Hospital (Guarantee) (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. HAMER(Premier and Treasurer) , pursuant to Standing Order No. 169, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Epworth Hospital (Guarantee) Act 1977 and for other purposes.


a first time.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF

WORKS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler) announced the presentation ofa message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund ffor the purposes of

the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (Borrowing Powers) Bill.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation), pursuant to Standing Order No. 169, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum amount which the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works may borrow and for other purposes.


a first time.

PUBLIC ACCOUNT (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler) announced the presentation of a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Public Account (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer), pursuant to Standing Order No. 169, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend section 16 of the Public Account Act 1958, and for other purposes.


a first time.

ADJOURNMENT. PROBATE FUNERAL ALLOWANCE-

HOUSING COMMISSION CHARGESROAD SAFETY BOOKLET-RAILWAY STATIONS-SALE OF HOUSING COMMISSION HOMES TO TENANTS.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education): I move-

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow, at two o'clock.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of

Education): I move-That .the House do now adjourn. Mr. EDMUNDS (Ascot Vale):

I raise a matter for the attention of the Premier and Treasurer. Recently it was brought to my notice that under the Probate Duty Act a form which a person handling a small


estate must complete has a heading, "Deductions from Gross Estate". Under section 10, which relates to funeral, burial or cremation expenses incurred, the maximum deduction allowed from the gross estate is $160. The ordinary, simple funeral costs no less than $600 or $700. I should like the Treasurer and the Government to urgently consider the proposition that that amount should be raised to ensure that people who are handling small estates on behalf of relatives are able to deduct something nearer the contemporary price of the burial of a relative. This matter requires the most simple of amendments. I believe it is some time since there has been any change in the law and that an amendment would be welcomed by the community generally.

Mr. FOGARTY (Sunshine): I raise a matter with the Minister of Housing. During the latter part of the last sessional period the honorable member for Footscray told the House that certain people wishing to purchase or rent a Housing Commission home were charged certain sums of money illegally. I believe an investigation was carried out and, possibly, arising from the investigation charges may be made. I represent an electorate in which there is a large number of Housing Commission homes for rental and purchase. From information received there is every possibility that some of my constituents may have been caught up in a certain amount of skullduggery which may have occurred in areas within the Housing Commission. As a result of the Minister's investigation I wish to know whether charges are to be laid against certain officers of the Housing Commission. If so, how many and what is the nature of the charges?

I raise this matter on the adjournment motion to find out where the people who have paid the money, among whom are newer settlers to our country, now stand. In industrial relations I have always accepted the fact that the employer is responsible

for the employee. Does the same principle apply within the Housing Commission? In other words, does the Housing Commission accept responsibility for employees of the commission who have illegally taken money out of the pockets of certain residents of Australia, some of whom were not fully conversant with the laws of the land? What has hap.pened within the ambit of the Minister's investigation, and where do the persons who have purchased or rented homes stand as a result of the investigations carried out by the Minister?

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick): I raise with the Minister who represents the Chief Secretary in this House a matter which concerns the availability of the Victorian road code booklet in languages other than English. The Minister mayor may not be aware that in 1975, in answer to a question that I asked, the former Chief Secretary said that the booklets were out of stock in the period from July to August, 1975, but he hoped they would be available in Italian, Greek and other languages early in the New Year. Subsequently I have asked other questions, both without notice and on notice, and on each occasion I have been assured by Ministers that the booklets will be available.

This morning the Road Safety and Traffic Authority stated, as we have been told repeatedly, that translations have now been made but there are problems with the Government Printer. I do not know where the problem is but one would imagine that a normal Government department and a normal Minister would have been able to ensure that if a stock of important booklets ran out in July and August, 1975, the new printing would occur before midSeptember, 1977.

It does not take a particularly active department or a particularly active Minister firstly to ensure that these books are available and, secondly, to ensure that promises that are given to Parliament and to

9160 Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Adjournment.

the migrant communities of Melbourne are fulfilled. No doubt the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, would be aware that the booklets were extremely useful. When they first came out I had quite a stock in my electoral office and copies were taken by many people so that they could understand the Victorian road code. That makes the road safer for all of us. The booklets were also available in Government offices and they were snapped up because for many people they were the first adequate account of the Victorian road code.

r ask the Minister representing the Chief Secretary whether he can ascertain the reason for the further delay and give some guarantee to the House that promise No. 5 may be kept.

Mr. JONES (Melbourne): I bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport a matter concerning question No. 1760 on the Notice Paper. The question was one of a series asked early in the autumn sessional period. Eight of them have still not been answered now that the House has resumed for the spring sessional period.

The question reads as follows-To ask the Honorable the Minister of

Transport what railway stations in the Melbourne suburban system-(a) require station staff on duty. due to curvature in track at the station resulting in part of a normal seven-carriage train being obscured from the guard's view;

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Public Works): I wish to raise a point of order. Until tonight I had assumed that the honorable member for Melbourne was an intelligent man but he is asking questions on the adjournment of the House. Why does the honorable member not raise these questions at the appropriate time?

The SPEAKER (Sir Kenneth Wheeler): Order! The honorable member for Melbourne is asking the Minister of Transport why a certain question on the Notice Paper has not been dealt with.

Mr. JONES (Melbourne): I should like the honorable gentleman to bear with me until half time. The question continues-and (b) have approaches and/or barrier gates to platforms which are obscured from the guard and/or driver of a normal sevencarriage train. I asked this question on the ides of March, which the Deputy Premier at least would recognize as being 15th March, this year. That is almost six months ago and the question has not yet been answered.

What I really want to know is what has happened to the administration of the Minister's department. I asked the question because the Australian Railways Union gave me a copy of a notice prepared by the Minister of Transport which classified railway stations in terms of their visibility. I thought the information contained in the material prepared by the Minister's own department was so valuable that it ought to be on public record. I thought I had asked the Minister the easiest question possible. All he had to do was to put the question in and his computer-like mind would immediately recognize it as being the language of his department. He could say, "That is easy. I will have the answer tomorrow." In fact. the poor individuals who advise him must have lost the piece of paper because six months have now thundered by and they cannot find the material on which the question is based. I ask the Minister why he has not been able to provide an answer to the question.

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir): I direct a matter to the attention of the Minister of Housing. A number of residents of the Housing Commission estate at East Reservoir are seeking to purchase their homes. They have been advised that no sales of houses on the estate will be made pending a decision concerning a planning proposal.

I ask the Minister to consider the position of residents who have indicated that they wish to buy the homes they presently occupy and whether a valuation could be made and an undertaking given to sell at


that valuation if a decision to release these homes for sale is ultimately made. I also ask the honorable gentleman to bear in mind the position of those residents who now have dependants under the age of 21 but who may not in eighteen months or two years have those dependants. I should be grateful if the Minister would investigate the matter in an attempt to provide justice for those residents so affected.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): I have taken notice of the request made by the honorable member for Ascot Vale to increase the amount of deduction for funeral expenses for probate duty purposes and will be glad to deal with that matter in connection with the Budget.

Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): Concerning the matter raised by the honorable member for Sunshine, I thought that the press at large had covered the situation of charges laid against people who had offered and paid bribes to be advanced in the queue to purchase a house. To date more than a dozen people have been charged on various matters.

Mr. FOGARTY: The tenants have been charged?

Mr. HAYES: Tenants who have paid bribes to have their cases advanced in the queue have been charged. A former officer of the commission has also been charged and other charges will follow. Those charged have been remanded for trial later this year.

With respect to the matter raised by the honorable member for Reservoir, honorable members will recall that last April it was alleged that the commission intended to bulldoze 14,000 homes. At the time I explained that, with my concurrence, given in the previous November or December, the commission had written to owners of old houses which had a capital value of approximately $8,000 in those days, advising them that the houses were being withheld from sale while a study was undertaken into redevelopment opportunities.

The proposition was that the commission could consolidate the titles to old, dilapidated houses and offer the existing tenants the opportunity of compatibly moving to another site, offer to move them back free of charge and provide, in place of, say, eight old houses, perhaps twenty new terrace apartments. The commission believes that would be appreciated by both the people who were afforded new housing in place of old and those who would be rehoused close to public transport and facilities.

The Housing Commission has now vetted most of those 14,000 opportunities and in the next week or so letters will be sent to approximately 13,500 tenants to tell them they can proceed with an application to purchase if they wish to do so. There are approximately 410 or 420 opportunities for redevelopment which are still under investigation.

It may be that each of the tenants the honorable member represents is at present occupying a property which has been cleared for purchase, but if the property happens to be one of those still under investigation for redevelopment the tenant will be told of that in a nice, frank, courteous letter.

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): Obviously, from the shy and coy glances of the honarable member for Brunswick towards the press gallery, he has already given the press gallery a good briefing on the matter he raised of the translation of the literature concerning the road code.

During the last sessional period a number of questions concerning this matter were placed on the Notice Paper. With the creation of a Ministry of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs by the Premier of this State-

Mr. JONES: And the Parliament. Mr. SCANLAN: Yes, the Premier

and the Parliament, it became obvious to the Government that there was a need to examine the type of literature to which

9162 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

the honorable member has alluded. Therefore, with a view to improving the quality and production of publications for those who wish to have information supplied in languages other than English, a committee has been established by the Chief Commissioner of Police, who consults with the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs with a view to improving the range and quality of publications printed and published by the Government. That has occurred and is continuing.

In the meantime, if there are delays with the Government Printer, that is a matter for the Premier and not the Chief Secretary. I inform the honorable member that I understand the publications will be available soon.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): Immediately upon the honorable member for Melbourne asking me about question No. 1760 my computer-like mind told me that the question had already been answered. I checked with the Clerk, and there is a copy of the answer in the Papers Room. I ask the honorable member to attend one of his many offices and look at his unopened mail. If he is unable to find the answer I am sure that the Papers Room will be able to help him. In the event that the Papers Room is not able to make one available to him, I shall be delighted to do so tomorrow.


The House adjourned at 1.48 a.m. (Wednesday).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE.

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated-

REPORT ON FIRE SAFETY. (Question No. 680)

Mr. WILKES (Leader of the Opposition) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

In view of the statement of the former Chief Secretary that sections of the report of the Liberal Party Policy Committee on

Fire Safety are a blueprint for legislative reform. whether the Government will be taking action to implement the report; if so, whether the Minister will take steps to have the report made public?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education) : The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

The Government has taken action in respect of a number of recommendations made in the report and the details in this respect have been publicized. Further steps will be taken as the results of current investigations come to hand.

The report was prepared for the infonnation of the Government and it is not proposed to arrange for its publication.

FUNDS FOR LIBRARmS. (Question No. 949)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of the Arts-

In each of the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 inclusive--

1. What amount was made available by by the Commonwealth Government and the State Government, respectively, for the improvement of local and central libraries through the provision of foreign language material?

2. What amount was actually spent and to what J?Urpose any shortfall in expenditure was applied?

Mr. HAMER (Minister of the Arts): The answer is-

1. Advanced Recouped from by State Commonwealth

$ $ 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76

29,836.85 45,810.38

Totals 75,647.23

75,647.23

75,647.23

The Commonwealth, through the Department of Urban and Regional Development, undertook to reimburse the State for expenditure of up to $94,000 incurred between 15th May, 1974, and 1st July, 1974, for provision of central foreign language materials at libraries in specified areas.

At my request this time limit was later extended to 1st July, 1975.

2. Problems with both local and overseas supplies meant that up to 30th June, 1976, $75,647.23 was expended. Expenditure was curtailed as there was no guarantee during 1975-76 that the Commonwealth would continue to reimburse the State. Hence there was no shortfall, as the Commonwealth reimbursed only on proof of expenditure.

Questions [6 SEPTEMB~R, 1977.] on Notice. 9163

PRIMARY FUELS. (Question No. 1417)

Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

1. Whether the Ministry of Fuel and Power co-operated with the Fuels Branch of the Commonwealth Department of Minerals and Energy on the End Use Analysis of Primary Fuels Forecast· Study undertaken by that department; if so, what are the details of that co-operation, indicating what information the Ministry was able to provide?

2. What data the Ministry has at its disposal on all fuels usage and forec~ts in this State?

3. What is the forecast consumption of primary fuels, by industry and by fuel type, expressed in British thermal units multi 10 to the power 12, in Victoria from 1971-72 to 1984-85?

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Minerals and Energy): The answer is-

1. No. 2. I refer the honorable member to the

Victorian Government's Green Paper on energy, issued March, 1977.

3. The forecast information relating to primary fuels is contained in Tables 2 ·1 and 2· 2, also figures 3 and 6 of the above Green Paper. Conversion data is found at the end of the report.

Forecast consumption of oil fuels by Australian manufacturing industries is contained in the latest Oil and Australia 1976 fublication by the Australian Institute 0 PetroleumLtd. (page 7).

GRAIN SUBSIDIES. (Question No. 1446)

Mr. HANN (Rodney) asked the Premier-

If he will lay on the table of the Library all correspodence and files relative to the request to the Commonwealth Government for the inclusion of grain subsidies as a fonn of drought relief under the Natural Disaster Scheme; if not, why?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer): The answer is-

The provision of a subsidy on the purchase and transport of feed grains was one of a number of matters covered in correspondence between the State and Commonwealth in fonnulating appropriate relief measures within the framework of established natural disaster arrangements.

As indicated in my letter to you of 15th April, a subsidy on feed grains is only considered as a last resort measure to help a fanner feed his essential breeding stock.

I took up with the Prime Minister in September of, last year the possible need for grain subsidy having regard to the conditions then existing. The Prime Minister referred the matter to the committee which was set up to advise Commonwealth Ministers, but following the spring rains, it was decided that such a last resort measure was not then necessary.

FIRE AT MOUNT MARTHA BEACH HOUSE.

(Question No. 1519)

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the National Party) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

If the Chief Secretary will lay on the table of the Library all correspondence between the Under Secretary and the honorable member for Caulfield relating to the police investigation and legal proceedings arising from the setting on fire of the honorable member's beach house at Mount Martha in June, 1974, together with all other correspondence relating to these matters?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

It is not proposed to table the file.

MEDIBANK HOSPITAL PATIENTS. (Question No. 1618)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. Whether the Minister, the Hospitals and Charities Commission, the Department of Health or the Medical Board of Victoria, have received complaints concerning doctors refusing to treat Medibank hospital patients; if so, how many complaints have been received, what was the result of the investigation into each such complaint and what action was subsequently taken?

2. Whether the Commonwealth Minister of Health has communicated or corresponded with the Minister or any Victorian departmental officers concerning the problem of the non-treatment of Medibank hospital patients; if so, what action is proposed to be taken by the Minister?

Mr. JONA (Assistant Minister of Health): The answer supplied by the Minister of Health is-

1. There have been isolated reports concerning doctors refusing to treat Medibank hospital patients but only one complaint was fonnally made to the Hospitals and Charities Commission. Upon investigation


the commission arranged a firm admission date for the patient for treatment under the Commonwealth-State cost-sharing arrangements.

2. Yes. The Commonwealth Minister of Health recently drew attention to a complaint that a patient had failed to gain admission to a recognized hospital where he required urgent surgery. At the time the patient advised the hospital that he was privately insured. No beds were available at the particular hospital and other public hospitals were asked but were unable to help. The patient was referred to the surgeon on call at his private rooms who decided that admission was necessary.

At the time the patient believed that he was covered by family health insurance but intimated that if he was not his family would accept responsibility for the payment of the accounts. He then elected to go to a private hospital.

It is believed that the problem in this particular case was exceptional and Specific to the patient and cannot be regarded as being related to a general shortage of beds.

HOSPITALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.

(Question No. 1620)


In respect of the hospitals development programme currently funded by the State and the Commonwealth-

1. Whether the Commonwealth Government refused to meet the increased cost of State programmes approved for funding under the programme in the year 1975-76; if so-( a) when the decision was announced; (b) what additional cost was involved for the State; and (c) whether the programme was delayed and, in that event, how?

2. Whether the Commonwealth Government has notified the State that it will not meet the increased costs of approved projects in 1976-77; if so-Ca) when the decision was conveyed to the State; (b) what additional cost was involved for the State; and (c) whether the programme is to be delayed and, in that event, how?


1. Yes. (a) In February, 1976, the Common

wealth Government advised that in view of the curent economic situation it had decided that it could not fund cost escalation on the State's grant for 1975-76.

(b) It is not possible to calculate the additional cost for the State.

(c) In some instances there were and will be delays.

2. Yes. (a) November, 1976. (b) It is not possible to calculate the

additional cost for the State. (c) In some instances there were and

will be delays.

MEomANK PAYMENTS. (Question No. 1635)


1. Whether the Department of Health h~s investigated any complaints from the pubh,c concerning over-charging or abuse of Medibank payments; if so, how many doctors have been investigated and with what result?

2. Whether the department has investigated the case of Dr. David Sender who was found guilty in relation to eleven charges of Medibank over-payments; if so, what action the Department of Health has taken.?

3 Whether the case of Dr. Sender, or any other doctor, charged and/or found guilty in relation to Medibank payments has been referred to the Medical Board of Victoria for action; if so, which cases and what action the board has taken?

Mr. JONA (Assistant Minister of Health) : The answer supplied by the Minister of Health is-

1. Complaints from the public concerning over-charging or abuse of Medibank payments come within the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Department of Health. In so far as the State of Victoria is concerned, section 17 of the Medical Act provides for inquiries by the Medical Board in respect to the conduct of medical practitioners where the medical practitioner has been convicted of an indictable offence or has been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect or is an inebriate within the meaning of the Inebriates Act 1958 or any corresponding succeeding enactment.

2. Yes, but it is understood that the offences which Dr. Sender was convicted' of were not indictable and therefore outside of the provisions of section 17 of the Medical Act.

3. Yes, the Medical Board is at present considering reports submitted by the Commonwealth authorities concerning Dr. Sender and another medical practitioner.


CUTS IN PUBLIC SPENDING. (Question No. 1640)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Premier-

1. Whether the Prime Minister or any other Commonwealth Minister, has written to him or any State Minister this year concerning cuts in public spending?

2. Whether the State has been informed that any proposed grants from the Commonwealth to the State would be part of expenditure cuts approved by Federal Cabinet in January and February this year; if so, which programmes will be affected and to what extent?


1. Yes.

2. Yes. Several programmes will be affected. The extent will not be known until the Federal Budget is brought down.

EDENHOPE HOSPITAL. (Question No. 1661)


Further to question No. 1160 answered on 8th March, 1976-

1. Whether the difficulties between the committee, doctor, matron and other staff of the Edenhope hospital have now been resolved?

Whether the resolution of these difficulties is the reason for the decision not to lay the file or files on the table of the Library; if not, what is the reason?


1. It is believed that the problems associated with the management of the Edenhope and District Memorial Hospital, have been resolved.

2. For the above reason, it would be inadvisable to table the file at this stage.

SCHOOLS IN COBURG ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 1719)

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

How many secondary schools within the electoral district of Coburg have a guidance career officer attached to the staff?

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

I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 29th August, 1977, that in the electoral district of Coburg, Newlands High School has a career education officer appointed to its staff.

MELBOURNE-GEELONG RAILWAY UNE. (Question No. 1723)

Mr. GUDE (Geelong East) asked the Minister of Transport-

1. What progress has been made On the duplication of the Geelong-Melboume rail link and when the duplication will be completed?

2. What is the position regarding the electrification of the Newport-Werribee rail link and when it is expected this electrification will be completed?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): The answer is-

1 and 2. As the honorable member would be aware, the Government has allocated $700,000 this financial year for work on these two major projects.

The Victorian Railways Board has advised me that on-site work has commenced on the duplication of the MelbourneGeelong line and that design work is proceeding on the electrification of the line to Werribee.

Subject to an appropriate flow of funds, the Victorian Railways Board estimate that the duplication will be completed by the end of the 1979-80 financial year and that the electrification will be completed towards the end of 1981.

(Question No. 1739)

Mr. BIRRELL (Geelong West) asked the Minister of Transport-

What progress has been made in the duplication of the Lara to Corio section of the Melbourne-Geelong railway line since the announcement in the 1976 Budget of an allocation of $500,000 for such work?


The Transport Works and Services Act 1976 provides for expenditures until December, 1977.

As the honorable member would know the Government has committed $700,000 this financial year for work on two major projects on the Geelong line-the duplication between Little River and Corio and the electrification between Altona junction and Werribee


The. honorable member will be pleased to know that on-site work has already commenced on the duplication of the remaining section of the Geelong line.

ELDERLY CITIZENS' CLUBS. (Question No. 1744)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Assistant· Minister of Health, fOr the Minister of Health-

1. What funds have been allocated in each of the past five years to elderly citizens' clubs an~ on what basis the allocation was made?

2. What are the functions of these clubs and what percentage of the aged in the community they serve?

Financial year

1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 " 1974-75 " 1975-76 ..

The basis of such allocation was as follows-(0) Capital-. 1971 to 15th September, 1971-maximum

subsidy of $10,000 on a $2 for $1 basis. 16th September, 1971, to 21st August,

1973-

1. (a) Approved cost not exceeding $22,500: Subsidy-seven-ninths of approved project.

(b) Approved cost exceeding $22,500 but not exceeding $30,000: Subsidy-$10,000 plus an amount equal to one-third of the approved cost.

(c) Approved cost exceeding $30,000: Subsidy-$20,OOO plus an amount equal to the direct contribution by the municipal council towards the cost of the project provided that the total amount of subsidy shall not exceed the aggregate of $10,000 and one-third of the approved cost.

22nd September, 1973 onwards--

1. (a) Cost not exceeding $30,OOO-Subsidy-an amount equal to actual cost.

(b) Cost exceeding $30,000-Subsidy-a basic amount of $30,000 plus $2 for each $1 contributed to the project cost by the municipal council from municipal funds only.

(b) Maintenance-1.971 to 30th September, 1974. Maximum

of $2,000 per annum per club on the basis of four-fifths of the net cost to the council;

3. What sUpel'Visioo. is undertaken by the State over how well these clubs achieve their objectives?

4. What action has been taken, or is proposed, following the submission of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Association of Geronotology that elderly citizens' clubs do not r~ch a wide enough group of elderly people in need?


1. Capital and maintenance payments to elderly citizens' clubs in Victoria for the financial years 1971-72, to 1975-76 inclusive were as follows--

Total payment Capital Maintenance

$ $ $

269,041.84 54,735.59 214,306.25 579,393.22 ~66,572.08 212,821.14 523,776.85 282,960.31 240,816.54 803,291.57 525,269.43 278,022.14

2,171,690.04 1,753,900.59 417,789.45

subject to the net cost of anyone item (excluding hot meals) being limited to 25 per cent.

1st October, 1974, to 30th September, 1975. Maximum of $3,000 per annum per club on the basis of four-fifths of the net cost to the council; subject to the net cost of anyone item (excluding hot meals) being limited to 25 per cent.

1st October, 1975. Maximum of $3,000 per annum on the basis of two-thirds of the net cost to the council; subject to the net cost of anyone item (excluding hot meals) being limited to 25 per cent.

1st October, 1976. Maximum subsidy of $6,000 per annum per club providing a hot meal service and up to $4,000 per annum per club not providing hot meals on the basis of two-thirds of the cost to the council; subject to :the net cost of anyone maintenance item ( excluding hot meals) being limited to no more than the $4,000.

2. Elderly citizens' clubs provide services and amenities to assist the elderly to retain their health so that they may continue to lead independent lives in their own homes. The recommended constitution for the clubs provides that the club is-

cc to promote and undertake or assist in promoting and undertaking benevolent assistance for elderly people of both sexes irrespective of creed, class or colour and without in any way limiting the generality


of the foregoing provision shall have power to do or to assist in doing any or all of the following things-

(i) To provide a benevolent relief to elderly people by establishing and maintaining a club or clubs.

(ii) To provide recreational facilities, social companionship, entertainment and daily accommodation and care for club members.

(Hi) To establish and maintain a "mealson-wheels" service.

(iv) To organize and maintain a visiting service."

It is estimated that approximately 15 per cent of the aged in the community avail themselves of the facilities provided by elderly citizens' clubs.

3. Community welfare advisers of the Department of Health visit all clubs subsidized by the Government and provide advice and assistance to the club committees in achieving the objects detailed in the constitution.

4. With the object of assisting municipal councils in developing elderly citizens' clubs so as to reach as many elderly as possible the Department of Health has appointed three additional community welfare advisers. In addition the department has arranged regional seminars to discuss with municipal representatives the services provided and the best use of elderly citizens' club facilities.

Many of the clubs provide chiropody services and the department has at present under consideration proposals for the extension of health facility services through the clubs.

At the present time a workin~ party appointed by the Premier is revieWIng services at elderly citizens' clubs as part of an investigation into domiciliary care services provided by municipal councils.

RAILWAY STATIONS. (Question No. 1760)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of Transport-

What railway stations in the Melbourne suburban system-(a) require station staff on duty, due to curvature in track at the station resulting in part of a normal sevencarriage train being obscured from the guard's view; and (b) have approaches and/or barrier gates to platforms which are obscured from the guard and/or driver of a normal seven-carriage train?


There are in the suburban area-(a) Thirty-six stations where the

curvature of the track obscures the guard's view of portion of the train at the opposite end.

(b) Seventy-two locations where the curvature of the track obscures the entrance to the station platform from the view of the guard or driver.

DIET OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. (Question No. 1765)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. What investigations have been undertaken by the Department of Health into the diet of school children, and with what results?

2. What action is lroposed to control school tuck shops an the sale of sweets and sugar d~?

3. Whether it is proposed to follow the United States of America and English pr-actice of providing a basic meal to school children at lunch time; if not, why?


1. The School Medical Service of the Department of Health participated in the investigation related to fish eating and mercury contained in fish during 1972-73. Ap~rt from this, the depa.rtn}ent. ha~ not carned out any formal investigatIon mto the diet of school children. It has, however, for a long time and in many different areas acted as consultant and adviser on nutrition to the Education Department and to individuals and groups associated with institutions operating under the Education Act.

2. There is no power to control the sale of sweets and sugar drinks in school tuckshops and canteens operated in independent schools The matter of control over tuckshops . and canteens operated in State schools is one for the Minister of Education.

3. The question should be directed to the Minister of Education.

LAND IN LYGON STREET, CARLTON.

(Question No. 1776)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of Housing-

In respect of the vacant block of land in Lygon Street, Carlton, immediately adjacent to the block of flats on the south side of Lytton Street-

1. What were the dimensions of the block?

2. When the land was acquired by the Housing Commission and at what prIce?

3 When the land was sold, indicating the na~e of the purchaser and the selling price?

91()8 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

Mr. HAYES (Minister of Housing): The answer is-

1. 122 ft. III ins. frontage to Lygon Street, 155 ft. 5 ins. frontage to Cardigan Stre~t. 332 ft. 2l ins. depth.

2. Individual properties which form the subject land were acquired between 16th February, 1965, and 5th March, 1968, at a total price of $192,573.

3. Agreement on sale was reached on 27th October, 1976. The purchaser was R. & M. Cardigan Developments Pty. Ltd. Sale was effected at the Valuer-General's valuation of $233,000.

STATE SCHOOL CLASS-ROOMS. (Question No. 1780)

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray): asked the Minister of Education-

1. How many-(a) portable; and (b) Bristol class-rooms, are currently in use in Victorian State schools?

2. Whether, in view of the continuing use of these class-rooms, consideration has been given to (a) insulation; (b) installation of overhead fans; and (c) construction of external sun blinds, for these class-rooms?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 24th August, 1977, as follows-

1. (a) 2,718 portables are currently in use in Victorian State schools.

(b) 530 Bristol class-rooms are currently in use in Victorian State schools.

2. All portable class-rooms throughout the State have roof insulation. From 1972-73 onwards all portable class-rooms have been fully insulated, however no provision is made for the supply of exterior sun blinds and fans as it is considered that as all portables have either internal blinds or heattreated and tinted windows, the portables are adequately protected.

TEACHER EMPLOYMENT. (Question No. 1785)

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray) asked the Minister of Education-

With regards to teachers currently registered for appointment to the Education Department-

1. What proportion are registered for(a) part-time; and (b) full-time appointment?

2. What proportion are women?

3. What subject areas the secondary and technical applicants are qualified to teach in?

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

of

I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 2nd August, 1977, as follows-

Primary Schools Division 1. 7·9 per cent want part-time employ

ment.

2. 9·2 per cent are male-90·8 per cent female.

Secondary Schools Division 1. 22 per cent of applicants for temporary

teaching positions require part-time employment, 78 per cent full-time.

2. 60 per cent of applicants are· women.

3. Applications cover all areas of curriculum but the majority are applican~s for humanities subjects. Most of the applIcants who have not been appointed are available only for restricted localities where few vacancies exist.

Technical Schools Division

1. In the Technical Schools Division the applicants are not required to indicate whether they are applying for part-time or full-time employment.

2. Approximately 58·2 per cent of the applicants are women. Applications are mainly in the humanities and mathematics and science area.

3. Of these registered persons there are no art, physical education or musi~ available for employment and a potential tentwenty of the other categories.

SAFETY FOR ELECTRICAL APPRENTICES.

(Question No. 1797)

Mr. GUDE (Geelong East) asked the Minister of Education-

Whether a new safety element relating to poles work has been introduced in apprenticeship studies for electricians in 1977; if not, whether he will have this matter reviewed with the view to inclusion at the earliest moment?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 23rd May, 1977, as follows-

"I desire to say that while safety is covered as an important element of the electrical trades courses specific reference to power pole safety is not included; however, as the complete electrical trades syllabuses are under review to enable the introduction of a "common core" interstate syllabus the matter of all safety elements is under review."


BEVERAGES PACKAGED IN ACRYLONITRILE. (Question No. 1813)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. Whether any beverages sold in Victoria are packaged in acrylonitrile?

2. Whether the Department of Health has been approached by any companies plan':' ning to sell beverages in such packaging?


1. No. It is not possible to package beverages in acrylonitrile, which is a liquid. Presumably the inquiry relates to plastics manufactured in part from acrylonitrile, and as far as I am aware these materials are not used for beverage containers in VictOria.

2. No.

PLASTIC WRAPPING PRODUCTS. (Question No. 1814)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. Whether any plastic wrapping products sold in Victoria are manufactured from a combination of vinyl chloride with vinylide chloride?

2. Whether the Minister is aware of the findings of Dr. Cesare Maltoni's research on vinyl chlorides?

Agency Number of

new apprentices

Commenced

3. Whether the Government will take any action to control the sale of wrappings manufactured from these substances?


1. Yes. On the assumption that "vinylide" should read "vinylidene" .

2. Yes. Officers of my department are aware of the work mentioned.

3. The National Health and Medical Research Council recommended limits for vinyl chloride in food and food container~. This recommendation was adopted in this State by an amendment (Statutory Rule No. 21, 1977) to the Food and Drug Standards Regulations.

APPRENTICESHIP VACANCIES. (Question No. 1819)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. How many apprenticeship vacancies in each trade classification were advertised by the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board and the Police Department, respectively, during the past five years?

2. How many applications were received in respect of each such position advertised?

3. How many tradesmen have been employed by each of these bodies during the past five years?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education) The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

1 and 2.

Trade to which apprenticed

Number of applications

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board

10th January, 1972 •. Motor mechanic .. Recorda not maintained

., Records not maintained

., Recorda not maintained

.. Recorda not maintained

.. Recorda not maintained

. . Records not maintained

., Recorda not maintained

.. Records not maintained





.. Records not maintained Police Department

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nil 3 1 4 1 1

·1 ·1 ·1

3

8th January, 1973 .. Motor mechanic 9th January, 1973 " Motor mechanic 8th January, 1973 .. Fitter and turner 16th December, 1974 " Fitter and turner 22nd November, 1974 Electrical mechanic 6th January, 1975 " Motor mechanic Sth January, 1976 " Motor mechanic 8th June, 1976 " Painter and decorator 18th February. 1977 " Electrical mechanic 18th February, 1977 .. Electrical fitter 4th March, 1977 " Motor mechanic 4th April, 1977 " Fitter .. 1972 30th January, 1973 " Motor mechanic 7th February, 1974 " Motor mechanic 24th February. 1975 " Motor mechanic 2Sth February, 1975 '. Motor mechanic 7th August, 1975 " Motor mechanic 19th August. 1975 " Radio technician 1st August. 1975 " Radio technician 27th January, 1976 " Cook .. . . 1st February. 1977 " Motor mechanic

.. 19

.. 12

.. 23

.. 10

.. 14

• Appointments were made on the basis of recommendations by the Industrial Trainini Commission.


3. The numbers of tradesmen employed by each agency, as at 1st December, in each of the past five years are-

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Year Metropolitan Fire lIriaadca

Board

51 56 56 54 55

PoUce Department

39 39 43 45 52

MELBOURNE-WERRIBEE RAILWAY LINE. (Question No. 1836)


1. What works will be carried out in 1976-77 in respect of electrification of the Werribee railway line, and what is the estimated cost?

2. What works will be carried out in each succeeding ftnancial year until the line is completely electrified, and what is the estimated cost in each case?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): The answer Is-

1. The Victorian Railways carried out preliminary design work during 1976-77.

2. Design work is proceeding and orders will be placed for materials.

The board has advised me that construction will begin during the 1979-80 financial year and be completed towards the end of 1981, providing there is an appropriate flow of funds.

The board is not in a position to provide annual cost estimates until design work is further advanced.

TRANSPORT NEEDS WEST OF MELBOURNE.

(Question No. 1837)


1. What studies have been or are being made of the future transport needs of the Melton, Werribee, Deer Park, Laverton and Little River areas, respectively?

2. What plans have been prepared and/or adopted for-(a) rail; (b) road; and (c) any other ,transport modes for these areas, indicating when such plans will be implemented?

. 3. What effect projected shortages of fossil-petroleum fuels will have on the areas mentioned above?


1. The study which resulted in the production of the met~politan transportation plan included many of the areas mentioned in the honorablemember's question. In addition a detailed study of transport needs in the western suburbs was carried out by Wilbur Smith And Associates in 1975. Officers of the MiniStry of Transport also completed an examination of transport in this area.

A transportation study of the Werribee area has been commissioned; and the outer ring study which involves some of the areas mentioned in the honorable member's questions, has been completed.

In addition the relevant transport authorities review the transport needs in these and other areas.

2. Work has been completed on the duplication of the line between Sunshine and Deer Park West and the proviSion of a new station at Ardeer.

Power Signalling has been installed between Deer Park West and Rockbank.

Duplication of the line between Deer Park West and Rockbank.

The lines to Werribee and Mel,ton will be electrified.

The Little River-Corio section of the Melboume-Geelong line will be duplicated.

3. It has been estimated that there are 615,021 car trips per day with origins and! or destinations in the areas mentioned. These motorists will, of course, be affected by further shortages of fossil-petroleum fuels.

BENALLA HIGH SCHOOL. (Question No. 1842)


1. When plans were first formulated for a new three-storey wing at Benalla High School to meet class-room needs?

2. When it is expected that work will commence on the wing?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 17th August, 1977 as follows-

1. Plans for three-storey development have been drawn up for which the estimate is considered to be excessive. In conjunction with local municipality a road closure adjacent to site is being considered. In the light of the proposed road closure it is intended to redesign the facility.

2. It is not possible in light of the above to advise a definite time for commitment.


NOISE LEVEL IN FACTORIES. (Question No. 1856)

Mr. CATHIE (CaITum) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

Further to the answer to question No. 1746 given on 22nd March. 1977-

1. In respect of the 22 factories visited for the purpose of investigating noise levels in 1975, and the 25 factories visited in 1976-(a) how many factories in each year were detected with excessive noise exposures; (b) what remedial measures were recommended for combating industrial deafness?

2. In each year, what percentage of the total number of factories in Victoria was visited?


1. (a) In 1975, fifteen factories were inspected where noise exposures of employees were found to be excessive; in two further cases, the exposures were found to be borderline with respect to the department's criteria.

In 1976, fourteen factories were inspected where noise exposures of employees were found to be excessive; in five further cases, the exposures were found to be borderline with respect to the department's criteria.

(b) Appropriate recommendations along the following lines have been. made-

(i) reduction of the noise exposure where practicable;

(ii) regular audiometry of exposed individuals to detect any deterioration of hearing;

(Hi) the provision of suitable ear protection devices.

2. The number of factories visited in each year would represent a very small percentage of the total number of factories in Victoria.


Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Transport-

In each of the past five years-1. How many tradesmen were employed

by the Victorian Railways Board and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board, respectively?

2. How many positions and in what trades apprenticeship vacancies were ac;lvertised?

3. How many apprenticeship applications were received in respect of each of the positions so advertised?

4. How many appointments were made in respect of each of the trades?


VICTORIAN RAILWAYS BoARD.

Employed Requirements

1972-2,539 Blacksmith Boilermaker Carpenter and joiner Electrical fitter (car lighting) Electrical fitter (signalling) Electrical fitter (workshops) Electrical mechanic Fitter and turner .. Motor mechanic .. Painter Plumber and gasfitter Signwriter Telephone technician Tinsmith and sheetmetal worker Upholsterer

1973-2,713 Boilermaker Car and wagon builder Cook Compositor Coppersmith .. .. Electrical fitter (car lighting) Electrical fitter (instrument) Electrical fitter (signalling) Electrical fitter (workshops) Electrical mechanic Fitter and turner .. Letterpress machinist Lithographic machinist

Applications Appointments

5 32 10

3 15 20 15 53 2 4 4 1

12 1 1

27 6 1 1 2 3 1

15 20 15 44

1 1

2 83

182 2

21 83

264 264 148 26

103 34 75 6 7

141 43

2 4

13 18 27 94

321 325

13 4

5 32 10 3

15 20 15 S3 2 4 4 1

12 1 1

26 6 1 1 2 3 1

14 19 15 40

1 1

9172

Employed

1974-2,736

1975-2,897

1976-2,783

Questions

Motor mechanic .. Mo~der .. Telephone technician

[ASSEMBLY.]

Requirements

Tinsmith and sbeetmetal worker Upholsterer Watchmaker Boilermaker Car and wagon builder Car painter Compositor Coppersmith . . . . Electrical fitter (car lighting) Electrical fitter (signalling) .. Electrical fitter (workshop) .. Electrical mechanic Electroplater Fitter and turner .. Gasfitter and plumber Letterpress machinist Motor mechanic .. Paper cutter Patternmaker Telephone technician .. Tinsmith and sheetmetal worker Upholsterer

Boilermaker Car and wagon builder Car painter .. Carpenter and joiner Compositor Cook Coppersmith . . . . Electrical fitter (car lighting) Electrical fitter (signalling) Electrical fitter (workshops) Electrical mechanic Fitter and turner Letterpress machinist Lithographic machinist Motor mechanic Moulder Painter Paper cutter .. Plumber and gasfitter Telephone technician Tinsmith and sheetmetal worker Upholsterer

Blacksmith Boilermaker Car and wagon builder Car painter ., Carpenter and joiner Compositor Coppersmith . . . . Electrical fitter (car lighting) Electrical fitter (signalling) Electrical fitter (workshops) Electrical mechanic Fitter and turner .. Motor mechanic .. Mo~der Painter .. . . Plumber and gasfitter Signwriter Telephone technician Tinsmith and sheetwmetal worker Upholsterer

on Notice.

Applicationa Appointments

2 2

10 2 2 1

23 6 5 2 2 3 S

20 16 1

42 2 1 2 1 1

12 2 3

.. 26

.. 10 4 4 2 1 3 S 6

22 19 48

1 1 2 1 5 1 5

12 1 4

4 40 10 5 9 1 3 3

10 24 12 56 2 2 8 4 1 2 1 3

236 1

78 24 10 7

56 45 23

2 3

13 18 70

270 2

225 176

9 202

15 61 15 12

78 6

25 322

5

6 12 29 82

374 237

21 9

311 1

33

277 193

19 25

13 107

30 23

367 30

9 33 37

118 416 257 321

2 39

305 97 94 23 18

2 2

10 2 2 1

2S 7 5 2 2 3 5

20 16

1 41

2 1 2 1 1

12 2 3

25 10 4 4 2 1 2 5 6

22 19 46

1 1 2 1 5 1 5

12 1 4

4 41 10

5 9 1 3 3

10 24 12 54 2 2 6 4 1 2 1 3


MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BoARD.

1. Tradesmen employed-

1972 480 1973 491 1974 477 1975 503 1976 515

2. Positions advertised - Apprenticeship opportunities were advertised in the daily press in the latter half of each year from 1972 to 1975, but more recently the board has been able to recruit sufficient apprentices without press advertising. The press advertisements only showed the trades in which apprenticeships were available. The number of vacancies in each trade was not shown. Details of the positions advertised are as follows-

Year Vacancies for apprentices in the trades of

1972 Bodymaking Electrical fitter Fitter and turner Motor mechanic Tradesman painter

Automotive electrician BlacksnUthing .. Bodymaker-lst class Boilermaker .. Carpenter and joiner Electrical fitter " Electrical mechanic Fitter and turner <3ardener .. Motor mechanic

Trade

Painter and decorator .. Plumbing and gas fitting Sheet metal-l st class Tradesman painter .. Tradesman panel worker and panel beater Tradesman trimmer


Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

In each of the past five years-

1. How many apprentices commenced work with the State Electricity Commission and the Gas and Fuel Corporation, respectively?

2. How many apprentices so employed were appointed in each of the respective trades?

1973

1974

1975

1976

Auto electrician Bodymaking Electrical fitter Fitter and turner Motor mechanic Sheet metal worker Tradesman painter Auto electrician Bodymaker Electrical fitter Fitter and turner Motor mechanic Panel beater Sheet metal worker Tradesman painter Bodymaker Electrical fitter Fitter and turner Motor mechanic

3. Applications received-The board in recent years has received many more applications for apprentices that it can engage. Many are from relatives of current employees and no record has been kept of the number of applications received in past years.

4. Appointments made-

1972

3

1 6 1 4

5

1973

3 2 3

4

3

1974

4

1 2

5

1 3

1975

2 1

12

1 4 4 6 2 8 1 2 1 2 1 3

1976

5 1

4

4 1 6

3. How many applicants for apprenticeship vacancies were interviewed for these positions, indicating the number for each trade?

4. How many tradesmen were employed by the commission and the corporation, respectively?


1 and 2. The following table shows the number of apprentices who have commenced work in each trade in each of the past five years with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria-


Electrical fitter Electrical mechanic Refrigeration mechanic Radio tradesman .. Watch and clockmaker Meter mechanic .. Fitter nad turner Motor mechanic Carpenter and joiner

Trade

Boilermaker . . . . Instrument maker and repairer Plumber Blacksmith Motor trimmer Panel beater Sheet metal worker Painter and decorator Auto electrician Mechanical fitter .. Bricklayer . . . . . . B1ectrical fitter and armature winder Gardener Linesman Moulder.. .. Silk screen printer

Totals ..

1973

21 10 2

2 39 6 3

15 7 1 1 1 2

2 1

28 1

142

1974

11 18 2

1 2

42 8 2

19 8 1

1 4 2

2 1

36

160

1975

21 14 3 2 1 6

42 8 5

18 8 3

12 1

2 3 1

85 1 1

238

1976

23 19 2

4 53 11 7

16 8 3

1 1

10 1

2 3

67

231

1977

17 28

1 4 1 5

52 9 7

16 9 2

1 1

10

3 2 3 1

91

263

The figures relating to the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria are as follows-

Trade 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

Fitting and turning 1 1 4 5 6 Electrical mechanic 1 1 1 3 2 Steel construction 2 2 3 2 3 Painting and· decorating 1 Motor mechanics .. 2 5 3 3 4 Carpentry and joinery 1 1 1 Instrument making 2 Plumbing and gasfitting 18 27 30 31 41

Totals .. 24 38 42 44 57

3. Information concerning the number of ticeship vacancies during each of the past applicants interviewed by the State Elec- three years is set out below. Figures relat-tricity Commission of Victoria for appren- ing to 1973 and 1974 are not available.

Trade 1975 1976 1977

Electrical fitter 53 63 34 Electrical mechanic 34 43 55 Refrigeration mechanic 9 6 4 Radio tradesman 10 20 Watch and clockmaker 3 6 Meter mechanic 12 11 21 Fitter and turner 95 96 108 Motor mechanic 24 27 38 Carpenter and joiner 17 21 22


Trade 1975 1976 1977

Boilermaker Instrument maker and repairer Plumber .. Sheetmetal worker Painter and decorator Auto electrician Mechanical fitter Bricklayer . . . . . . Electrical fitter and armature winder Gardener Linesman Moulder " Silk screen printer Panel beater ..

Total interviewed

The Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria does not have figures for the years 1973 to 1976 inclusive but the information relating to 1977 is as follows--Trade Fitting and turning Electrical mechanics Steel construction Motor mechanics Carpentry and joinery Plumbing and gasfitting-

Metropolitan Country

Total interviewed

1977 20

8 7

10 6

137 76

264

4. The number of tradesmen employed by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria as at 31st December in each of the past five years was--

1972--3,995 1973--3,989 1974-4,026 1975-4,202 1976-4,115

The following table relates to the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria and the figures are compiled as at 1st January in each of the past five years--

1973-547 1974-508 1975--606 1976-620 1977-663

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

(Question No. 1880)


In regard to the purchase by the Education Department of property in the City ot St. Kilda known as cc Ardoch "-

1. When the purchase was made, what was the purchase price, and what is the cost of-(a) present; and (b) planned, re· novations?

41 25 8 1

23 4

8 10

4-205

4-4 7

601

37 24 12 3

23 5

8 10

187 8

2

584

30 29 8 3

22

16 8

10 8

297

6

744

2. Whether the school to be established on the property is to be a district high school; if so, when?

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


1. This property was purchased on the 26th April, 1976, for $1,325,000.

(a) The present cost of renovations is $185,000 which includes the following projects-

House No. 6 Pilley StreetGymnasium; music; drama facilities.

House No. 8 Pilley Street-Science room: Geography room; re

medial room; toilets. Building No. 4-Ground floor-

Staff-Administration; library; seminarconference; staff toilet.

First floor-Home economics; needlecraft; lan

guage; general class-rooms. Building No. 5-Flat 24-

Woodwork; metalwork; machine room; store; seminar; toilet.

Building No. 5-Flat 25-

Art room; gallery; stores; seminal, toilet.

Provision of new multi-sport courts. Total cost of project--$I85,OOO. (b) It is planned to progressively moder

nize the existing buildings over the next few years, to provide for----

(i) the relocation of the Prahran Regional Administration;

(ii) a community education centre; (iii) a possible country student hostel; (iv) additional school facilities. The estimated cost of renovations for

further development of the school during 1977-78 is approximately $250,000, and there are currently no firm plans for the other proposals.


2. A co-educational high school catering for pupils from form 1 to form 5 will operate from the beginning of 1978.

HOUSING COMMISSION REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME,

WILLIAMSTOWN. (Question No. 1887)

Mr. STIRLING ('Williamstown) asked the Minister of Housing-

Whether a decision has been made concerning a redevelopment scheme for the Housing Commission area at Champion Road. North Williamstown; if so. whether he will make available a copy of the details of the scheme to the member for Williamstown?


No decision has yet been reached.

SUBSIDIES FOR SCHOOL WORKS. (Question No. 1896)

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray) aSked the Minister of Education-

1. What subsidies are now available to schools wishing to undertake building projects or grounds development projects. and what subsidies were available in 1975 and 1976?

2. What amount was spent by the Education Department on each category of such subsidy works in. each of the past two years. and how much IS planned to be spent this year?

3. How many schools have applied for and are currently waiting on the granting of each category of such subsidy?


1. Special grants. on a $1 for $1 basis, are currently available to schools as follows-Primary schools

General purpose rooms-Up to $20.000 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Canteens-Up to $7.000 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Grounds development-Up to $5.000 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Swimming pools-Up to $4.600 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Cooling systems-Up to $3.000 on a $1 for $1 basis (applicable to the north-western part of the State only). Secondary and technical schools

Ground development-(a) New schoolsUp to $12,500 on a $1 for $1 basis.

(b) Existing schools-Up to $5.000 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Minor building projects-Up to $5.000 on a $1 for $1 basis (e.g. covered areas, storage rooms. and so on).

Major building projects-Up to $16.000 on a $1 for $1 basis (e.g. common rooms, cafeterias. and so on).

Canteens-Up to $7.000 on a $1 for $1 basis.

Cooling systems-Up to $3,000 on a $1 for $1 basis (applicable to the north-western part of the State only).

Swimming pools-The extent of this grant is considered by the Minister in every case. The grant is normally on a $1 for $1 basis, $10,000 being the usual starting point.

The above grants were also available during 1975 but during 1976 due to the need to conserve funds for urgent building works, new applications for grants were suspended except for grants of up to $1.500.00 on a $1 for $1 basis for grounds improvements. During 1975 a grant of $225,000.00 on a $3 for $1 basis for the construction of multipurpose assembly halls could be obtained via a waiting list but during 1976 this grant was postponed pending the development of new policy concerning the provisions of such buildings.

Gymnasiums-Requests for a special grant towards the cost of a gymnasium are at present being considered on their individual merits pending clarification of a revised policy, and availability of funds.

2. During 1975-76 financial year $1,099,812 was spent on assembly halls and $946.000 on the other categories.

Expenditure recorded up to the 30th June, 1977, is $2,226,000 for assembly halls and $1,627,000 for other special grants.

It is planned to spend $2, 5 million on assembly halls and $1'7 million on special grants (other) this financial year.

3. Apart from applications for assembly hall grants (for which a new policy is operational) there is no waiting period for special grants. Applications are dealt with as they are received.

Details of the new policy for assembly hall grants have been forwarded to honorable members.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SYSTEM LEVEL INNOVATION

PROJECTS.

(Question No. 1913)

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray) asked the Minister of Education- -

1. What progress has been made on the system level innovation projects funded in 1975?

2. What funds were allocated for each of these projects and how much has been spent to date?

3. When it is expected that the study will be completed?




The following projects have been approved-

1. Regional Television Scheme (Special Services).

2. Media Mobile Audio-Visual Consultants (Special Services).

3. Reading Research and Treatment Centre (Special Services).

4. Audio-Visual Production Unit (Special Services).

5. Brunswick-Fitzroy School Community Study (Office of Director-General).

6. Evaluation of School Councils (Planning Services).

8. Joint Services Research-Feasibility Study (Planning Services).

9. Special Interest Centres-Feasibility Study (Planning Services).

10. Education of Girls-Resource Centre (Planning Services-Schools Divisions).

11. Language Programme-Preston Region (Planning Services-Preston R.O.E.-Catbolic Education Office).

12. National Seminar on Educational Disadvantage (Teacher Education).

13. School-Work Interface Project. A. Approved

(1) Regional Television Scheme-Exemplary Television Production and back-up dubbing services were instituted for schools in the Geelong region. $30,000 spent on portable B/W production equipment and colour recording equipment for one secondary, one technical school and the AudioVisual Education Centre in Geelong.

$35,000 was invested in television master recording equipment at Central A.V.E.C.

The total grant: $66,000. Expenditure to date: $64,503.

Extensive use made of colour recording equipment by both schools-hundreds of tapes copied from broadcasts. (At Matthew Flinders Girls High School 324 colour vidio tapes have been copied). Porta-paks were used less intensively for school produced materials both teacher and student initiated.

A.V.E.C. Geelong have used studio production equipment for teacher training and tape production in venues throughout the region-main areas Drama, Special Education and Remedial Reading. Dissemination of information through workshops and contact with the schools in the project.

(2) Media Mobile, Audio-Visual Consultants-To provide transportation of consultants, display materials, production equipment and a simulated remote control learning station (carrel). Concept was to pro-

vide resources for teacher-produced programmes involving self-paced mastery learning by pupils.

The total grant: $5,000. Expenditure to date: Nil.

A decision is to be made on the nature of the recurrent costs of the vehicle. Because of the school base of curriculum there is a continuing need for guidance to teachers in regard to the production of cost-effective a udio-visual resources.

(3) Reading Research and Treatment Centre-

(a) Eight Variable Reading Disability Study.

(b) Information Dissemination Project. The two funded projects inter-relate in

that the 1975-77 reading disability study is designed to research and evaluate aspects of reading performance in Melbourne State primary schools and to arrive at educationally productive conclusions which could be used at the teaching work-face.

Although separately funded, the Information Dissemination Project is dependent on the Eight Variable Project (EVP) for con .. tent, and provides its means of expression.

The total grants: (a) $25,000. (b) $10,000.

Expenditure to date: (a) $15,666. (b) Nil.

Brief interim report prepared. (4) Audio-Visual Production Unit-The

purpose of the project was to provide a facility for teachers of all systems, especially those in the metropolitan area, to produce their own teaching materials such as slides, audio cassette tapes, photographs, printed materials, etc.


Began operations in March 1976. Teachers come during and out of working hours. 300 productions handled per month (approximately). Order of priority of demand for services-graphic and associated print materials (i) slide making (ii) audio cassette copying (Hi) major users consultants and itinerant teachers in Special Services Division, metropolitan teachers, country teachers.

It was estimated that the capital value of the equipment needed would exceed the capability of the average school to supply.

(5) Brunswick-Fitzroy School Community Study


Report printed and distributed. (6) Evaluation of School Councils

-Commissioned to SCV-Burwood -interim reports prepared



Research schedule being re-negotiated due to delay in implementing changes in school councils.

(7) (a) Simulation Option Model Project -A feasibility study on the applicabUity of the Simulation Option Model to the planning needs of the department.

The total grant: $37,600. Expenditure to date: $35,550. Completion: February, 1977.

Report has been written and is being prepared for publication. User manuals are also completed and awaiting publication. Computer programmes are complete.

(b) Step '76 Report-A report to schools, other educational institutions and bodies concerned with employment on the Secondary-Tertiary Education Planning studies.

The total grant: $7,400. Expenditure: $7,400. Completion: December, 1976.

Report was produced and distributed. (8) Joint Services Research-Feasibility

Study-Collection of accurate data and ideas for development as a basis for preparing recommendations that funds be made available for upgrading the level of specialist support services on an intersystemic basis.

The total grant: $10,000 Expenditure to date: Nil Completion: December, 1977 (i) Representative committee to be estab

lished in line with A.S.C. recommendations. (ii) Executive officer position to be

advertised. (iii) Co-operation with Country Education

Project to be examined. (9) Special Interest Centres-Feasibility

Study-An investigation to examine:--nature and extent of existing facilities -forms of centres -structure (control, administration, staff,

students, funding). The total grant: $13,500 Expenditure to date: Nil Completion: December, 1977 Working party in the process of being

fonned to include representation from interest areas (arts, music, drama, craft, sport, academic), education authorities, teachers and community.

(10) Education of Girls-EstabHshmcnt of Resource Centre

The total grant: $18,000 Expenditure to date: Nil Completion.: December, 1978 (i) Initial meeting with advisory group

from related activities. (ii) School divisions to consider location,

management committee, appointment of .. liaison worker".

(11) Language programme-Preston Region-Facilitation of children's language development through an experientiallybased language programme.

The total grant: $50,000 Expenditure to date: NU Completion: June, 1978 (i) Interim Committee of Management

established which includes principals of three government schools, one Catholic school, part-time co-ordinator, District Inspector, Catholic Education Office.

(ii) Committee is in the process of con-sidering-

-appropriate terms of reference -accountability -refinement of project proposal -time table for completion -administrative arrangements by the

Regional Office. (12) National Seminar on Education Dis

advantage-Glenn College, La Trobe University, 15-18 August, 1977.

The total grant: $8,120 (Schools Com-mission, $6,620; V.I.S:E.C. $1,500)

Expenditure to date: Nil Completion: 18 August, 1977 Organizer: J. Beacham, Teacher Educa

tion Division. The conference will be for people already

involved in the programme-teaching, mak· ing decisions about the programme, offering counsel, and each State will be asked to select their own personnel from coordinators, teachers, field officers and consultants, parents, academics and students.

One hundred participants including resource personnel will be invited.

The objectives are the clarification, rediscovery and re-articulation of a programme's philosophy, and to help achieve a better match between underlying philosophy and practical outcomes of the programme.

Because of the complexity and breadth of the objectives, it is proposed to have three streams functioning---each one focussing on a different aspect of the theory! practice dynamic. The three streams are-

Tomorrow? A search. Curriculum. Philosophy in Practice. Interesting fea tures are-(a) the use of the "search" technique

employed at the Centre for Continuing Education at the Australian National University;

(b) emphases on understanding the theory and philosophy of the programme;

(c) a start to be made on a data bank! resource centre which it is hoped will be progressively built on after the conference.


B. In Process l. School based funding project-The pro

ject is designed as a series of inter-related studies examining school-based funding in Victoria. Five objectives of the project-

-critically evaluate the philosophy/theory of school-based funding

-assess and suggest alternatives to present school-based funding arrangements

~amine the schOOl community image of school-based funding

-examine the administrative procedures and infonnation flow for school-based funding arrangements

-examine the applicability of Victoria's experience with school-based funding to other school systems.

Estimated budget: $40,000 Completion: June, 1978 Project will be administered by a steering

committee with representatives of interested parties.

Each study will be under the direction of a study leader from within Planning SelVices Division.

2. School-Work Interface Project-The project has three phases-

(i) relationships between school and work;

(ii) re-entry to secondary schools; (iii) project stimulation.

Planned outcome-Report 1. Initiatives and practices in work

~perience, career education and prevocational counselling.

Report 2. Projects and developments in the area of student re-entry to secondary schools.

Report 3. Legislation, policies and activities in work experience and career education in Australia.

Report 4. Legislation, policies and activities in re-entry to secondary schools.

Report 5. Work experience, career education, pre-vocational counselling and reentry programs-evaluation and recommendations.

Estimated budget: $20,000. Completion: February, 1978. Once approved, a steering committee is

to be appointed which could consist of-Project Director, Principal Researcher, Schools Commission (two), TAFEC, and an academic.

AVERAGE WAGE. (Question No. 1936)

Mr. FOGARTY (Sunshine) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. What was the date on which the rates 'of workers compensation were last revised

and what was the average wage on that date?

2. What is the average wage at present? 3. Whether it is the intention of the

Minister to periodically amend the Act to preserve relativity with the average wagep

if so, when amending legislation will be introduced?


1. The benefits which are currently payable under the Workers Compensation Act came into operation on 1st July, 1975. The increase in benefits was based on the increase in weekly earnings per employed male unit in Victoria from the September, 1971, quarter to the December, 1974, quarter was $148.20.

2. The average male wage for the March, 1977, quarter, which is the latest figure available, was $190.90.

3. The matter of an increase in the benefits prescribed by the Workers Compensation Act is being examined in conjunction with the consideration of the recommendations made in the 'Aport of the Board of Inquiry into Workers Compensation in Victoria.

NATURAL GAS. (Question No. 1941)

Mr. AMOS (MorwelI) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

With respect to question No. 1437 answered on 29th March, 1977-

1. Why it is thought necessary for the Gas and Fuel Corporation to have confidential access only to information relating to those fields from which its dedicated quantities of natural gas are supplied?

2. Whether the Government will give the corporation access to the data necessary to enable it to make an independent appraisal of the total natural gas reserves in Victoria; if not, why?

3. What access the corporation has to Mines Department information?

4. Whether the Government's Green Paper estimate of Victoria's gas reserves was based on the Jast appraisal on these reserves which took place in 1973; if not, What appraisal was used for purposes of the paper?

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Minerals and Energy): The a'nswer is-

1. As indicated in my reply to your question 1437 the corporation is entitled to access to confidential information relating to only those fields in the GippsJand Basin which have been dedicated to the corporation under the terms of its contract with


Esso-BHP. Information on gas reserves in a number of other minor non-commercial fields, some of which are still being assessed, is not normally made available to the corporation as these are not fields dedicated to the corporation.

2. No. This is not considered to be necessary for the corporation's purpose.

3. On request the total natural gas reserves in Victoria would be made known to the corporation by the Mines Department. The total known hydrocarbons reserves in fields declared commercial by Esso-BHP are published by the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Ministry of Minerals and Energy from 1st September, 1977) in some detail in quarterly updated editions.

4. The estimates of Victoria's gas reserves published in the Government's Green Paper on Energy were based on figures supplied by the Mines Department (Department of Minerals and Energy from 1st September, 1977) in 1976 (after ratification by Esso-BHP) at the time the paper was prepared.

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION.

(Question No. 1946)

Mr. LACY (Warrandyte) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. Which groups or brigades have applied to register aircraft with the Country Fire Authority, indicating which applications were-(a) refused; and (b) delayed for more than one month?

2. What were the grounds for each refusal or delay?


1 and 2. Applications for registration of private aircraft for use by the Country Fire Authority are usually made by individuals.

The following applications have been made by groups-

Winchelsea group on behalf of J. H. Cumming. Application received 30th October, 1976. Approval granted by the authority on 15th December, 1976. The delay in granting approval was caused by the need to rf!fer the application to a meeting of the authority.

Lower Ritchie. January, January,

Lower Naylor. January, January,

Yarra group on behalf of C. K. Application received on 4th 1977, and approved on 24th

1977.

Yarra group on behalf of B. Application received on 7th 1976, and approved on 12th

1976.

Lower Yarra group on behalf of the Lower Yarra Foundation. ApplicatiOD received on 2nd October, 1975, and was refused because of uncertainty of ownership of the aircraft concerned.

AEROSOL PROPElLANTS. (Question No. 1952)

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

Whether any recommendations were made to the Minister by the ad hoc committee established in May, 1976, to enquire into the problems associated with aerosol propellants?


The investigations by the ad hoc committee have taken longer than was originally anticipated. The convenor of the committee has now infonned the Minister of Health that he hopes to be in a position to submit a report before the end of the month.

TEACHER AIDES IN COBURG ELECTORATE SCHOOLS.

(Question No. 1960) Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the

Minister of Education-1. What is the basis of appointment of

teacher aides? 2. To which schools within the electoral

district of Coburg teacher aides have been appointed?



1. (a) Schools on declared list for supplementary grants (provided by Commonwealth funds to disadvantaged schools) may apply to their regional (or area) Committee for Supplementary Grants. These committees will consider whether funds should be committed for the appointment of aides by school councils ( ethnic aides or teacher aides).

(b) We have endeavoured to extend the provision of aides beyond those schools on the declared list by special funding for other schools with considerable problems. This list was compiled on the specific recommendations of the directors of divisions. Special aides have been appointed in schools receiving refugee children.

(c) Aboriginal teacher aides are appointed on the recommendation of the Supervisor of Aboriginal Education, Special


Services Division. after investigation of a school's application, and are funded from Commonwealth Department Aboriginal Affairs.

2. In the electoral district of Coburg no teacher aide appointments have been made under the provisions of 1 (b) and (c) above. However under supplementary grants provision (1 (a) above). aides have been appointed at primary schools 484. Coburg (2 + 2 X 15 hours). 4260, Coburg East (1 X 0'5), 4543. Coburg North (1 + 1 X 0'5), 3941, Coburg West (3 + 2 X 0'6), 4864, Fawkner East (2 X 0'5). 4779, Fawkner North (7 X 0·5), 4328. Merlynston (1 X 0·7 + 1 X 3 hours) and at secondary school-Fawkner High School (1 + 5 X 0'5).

TRANSPORT TO SCHOOL SWIMMING CLASSES.

(Question No. 1962) Mr. MUTION (Coburg) asked the

Minister of Education-How many primary schools within the

electoral district of Coburg have applied this term for financial assistance for the provision of transport to swimming tuition classes?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 29th June, 1977, that within the electoral district of Coburg two primary schools (4543 Coburg North and 4731 Pascoe Vale North) have applied to the Physical Education Centre for financial assistance for the provision of transport to remedial swimming classes.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH.

(Question No. 1970)

Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the Premier-

Further to his answer toa question without notice on Tuesday, 29th March, instant concerning an offer to assist in solar energy research-

1. What amount the Government, excluding the State Electricity Commission, has contributed to solar energy research in each of the past ten years?

2. What amount the commission has spent on such research in each of the past ten years, indicating whether such. ~nd~ were available because of the commIssIon s own revenue-raising powers?

3. Whether an offer of assistance was made by the Government to the solar .research programme of the AustralIan National University before he made such an offer publicly on television; if so w~en the offer was made and by whom; If not,

whether the offer has now been conveyed to the university research team by letter or other means?

4. What are the details and the extent of the Government offer?


1. The Victorian Government, excluding the State Electricity Commission, did not spend any money on solar energy research until 1974. During the period 1974 to 1976 the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria spent a total amount of $6,000 on solar energy research and development. No other State organization as far as I am aware spent any money on this particular activity during this period.

2. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria spent the following amOlmts during ,the past ten years-1967-68 to 1973-74 $30,000 approximately 1974-75 $13,000 approximately 1975-76 $27,000 approximately 1976-77 (nine months)

to March, 1977) $21,000 approximately These funds were financed from the com

mission's revenue as part of its programme towards effective use of energy.

In addition, the commission is contributing to solar energy research through its membership of the Electrical Research Board.

3. No offer has been made to the Australian National University research group.

4. Not applicable.

BOX HILL TECHNICAL COLLEGE. (Question No. 1973)


With regard to the Box Hill Technical College-

1. What is the current student enrolment? 2. What courses of study are undertaken

at the college? 3. On which sites the college currently

operates? 4. How many portable class-rooms are

used by the college? 5. What stage planning has reached for

the redevelopment of the college? 6. When it is expected building will com

mence on the new site? Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of

Education): The answer is-I advised the honorable member by letter

dated 29th August, 1977, as follows-1. Student enrolments-Full-time day (of which 397 is the sec

ondary enrolment)


Part-time day Part-time evening

2. TAFE programmes-

1,580 3,018

5,332

(1) Preparatory: Engineering graphics, English. Mathematics, Physics, Technical drawing. Science.

(2) Technical orientation: Applied science. Art, Building studies. Business studies, Engineering, General studies, Integrated studies. Printing, Radio-lV and basic electronics, Physical education. Electrical, Plumbing, Motor mechanics.

(3) Tertiary orientation: Art. Physical education.

(4) Pre-employment: Architectural. electrical, Mechanical, Civil and survey drafting, Building studies, Communication and electronics technician (Radio-lV).

(5) Basic vocational: Carpentry and joinery, Electrical fitting and machining, Motor mechanics, Plumbing and gasfitting, Radio and electronic tradesmen.

(6) Advanced basic vocational and technician: Building construction, Building radio and T.V. communication technician, Electrical technician, Industrial electronics, Electrical drafting, Fluid power (Hydraulics and pneumatics), Mechanical technician, Metrology, Production, Toolmaking. Jig and tool drafting. Quarry technician, Quarry supervisor.

(7) Middle level vocational-Architectural drafting, Building supervisor, Estimating. Civil Engineering. Civil design drafting. Structural design drafting. Cartography, Surveying (assistant). Mechanical design drafting, Electrical engineering. electronic engineering, Extractive industries.

(8) Special purpose vocational-Crane drivers, Dogman and crane chasher's certificate, Fitting and maintenance, Gas accreditation, Pipeline design, Police studies, Plumbing and gasfitting, Telecommunications for Postmaster General. Toolmaking, First-aid and mine rescue, shot firing.

(9) Service programmes to other educational institutions-Workshop training for CAE and universities; off campus study programmes in co-operation with RMIT.

(10) Adult education-Amplifiers and stereo, Electronics hobby, Artmetal. Metalwork, Owner drivers, Painting, Photography, Pottery. Printmaking, Radio-lV, Woodwork hobby, Adult reading improvement, Basic mathematics for adults, Introduction to statistics and allied computations.

3. (a) Main college site-Dunloe Avenue Activities housed-Secondary division,

Plumbing,Carpentry and joinery, Fitting and machining and Motor mechanics apprentice courses; Art, Physical education and Draftingmiddle level courses; Mathematics, Science, Humanities support programmes.

(b) Watts Street annexe Activities housed-Radio and electrical

trades apfrentice courses; Electrical and mechanica drafting middle level courses; Humanities, and so on.

(c) Mitcham annexe Activities housed-Carpentry and Jomery

and Motor mechanics apprentice courses. (d) Rutland Road annexe No. 1 Activities housed-Soils and mining and

Civil engineering drafting middle level courses.

(e) Rutland Road annexe No. 2 Activities housed-External studies. (1) Cambridge Street annexe Activities housed-Refrigeration and air

conditioning, Workshop and theory complex being developed.

(g) New college (gas works) site Activities housed-Buiding trades work

shop. 4. There are 35 general and specialist

purpose portables in use by the college and two toilets-portable.

5. (a) A master plan of college redevelopment on the new .. gas works" site has been completed and approved by the Commonwealth.

(b) Commonwealth approval has also been obtained for the proposed stage one complex consisting of three large buildings to house the faculties of Engineering, Building studies, Related studies and catering and the Administration and student staff centre and the contract documentation for the stage is scheduled for completion late in 1977 ..

6. At ,the present rate of Commonwealth assistance it is anticipated that construction of stage one will commence on the gas works site early in 1979 and be completed in 1981.

COUNCIL OF ADULT EDUCATION. (Question No. 1981)

Mr. CRABB (Knox) asked the Minister of Education-

1. Whether he is aware that lecturers conducting courses for the Council of Adult Education formed an Adult Education Tutors' Association in 1970 and that amongst its objectives it seeks to further the development and expansion of adult education services in Victoria?

2. Whether he has so far failed to accede to requests frequently made by the association since its formation to have a representative of the association appointed to membership of the Council of Adult Education; if so, why, and whether he does not recognize that the claim of these tutors to be so represented on the council is at least as good as the claim of represented organizations such as the Country Women's Association, the Chamber of Manufactures, the Victorian Drama League and the Depart~ ment of Health?


3. Whether the council at its meeting on 25th May, 1973, passed a resolution to the effect that in any future review of the Act, provision shoUld be made for representation of tutors

4. Whether he will introduce amending legislation to provide for a nominee of the association to become a member of the council and thus demonstrate his support for the valuable service rendered to the community by the 700 experts who make their skills so freely available in the cause of adult education


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 28th June, 1977, as follows-

1. Yes, I am aware that the Adult Education Tutors' Association consisting of members of the Council of Adult Education's part-time teaching force was formed late in 1971 and I was advised of the objectives of the association.

2. The association approached me in May, 1972, seeking nominatIOn to the Council of Adult Education and at that time I suggested that 'the association establish a close liaison with the director of the Council of Adult Education.

3 and 4. Council, at its meeting of May 25, 1973, passed the following resolution-

.. That, in any future review of the Education Act, provision be made for the representation of tutors, administration and students".

At the same time views were expressed that the administration and students were already represented on council, by the director and the Adult Education Association and that in a similar way tutors were also members of council as nominees of other organizations.

In 1976, council established a Committee of Review which is examining the whole structure of its membership under the Act, in view of applications from a number of institutions-the State College of Victoria, Deakin University, the country continuing education centres, and so on-seeking nomination, all of which have substantial claims, and of which the Tutors' Association is but one. I expect that this Committee of Review will make recommendations in due course and when these are received the matter will be given further consideration.

The matter of amending legislation to accommodate so many claims could be complex. If the council should recommend the formal inclusion of a tutor amongst its Dumber, consideration will be given to establishing a formula by which a representative tutor might be selected.

In the meantime, one of the more active members of council has been a tutor for council for a number of years-and is very much engaged as a tutor of adults else-

where. Other members of council have also tutored or are tutors of adults, for council or elsewhere. These people are already bringing to council table the special skills and knowledge derived from their tutoring experience.

DANCE COMPANY FOR VICTORIA.

(Question No. 1985)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Minister of the Arts-

Whether he commissioned Mr. Garth Welch last year to prepare a report on the establishment of a small but highly effective dance company for Victoria; if so, whether the report has been completed by Mr. Welch and, in that event, whether copies will be made available to members on request?


1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.

FRANKSTON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

(Question No. 1993)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. What is the present number of beds at the Frankston Community Hospital, including the temporary ward?

2. What is the current ratio of beds per 1,000 population and how this compares with the accepted standard, indicating the requirements of beds for-(a) the Frankston population; and (b) the peninsula population.

3. What was the average monthly number of inpatients and casualty-x-ray patients, respectively, treated at the hospital in each month this year?

4. When a firm decision will be made on funds for the actual construction of the stage 1 project, including wards for 150 beds, a suite of six theatres, out-patients' area, and augmented staff facilities?


1. 193 beds. 2. (a) 3·69

(b) 2·25 (excluding Frankston population) .

The accepted standard for hospital beds per thousand of population is 3·5.


3.

Average number of in-patients-January February March

157·7 174·9 184·4

Average monthly numbers of x-rays-1,528 1,3.83 1,602

April 175·1

1,508

Average monthly number of casualty patients-2,767 2,320 2,618 2,560

4. The Hospitals and Charities Commission is examin~g the final sketch plans for which there are some outstanding questions on mechanical services. Working drawings will then take some months to prepare. The funding for this project will be considered at the time the completed drawings are approved. It is likely that a preliminary contract will be let for a new boiler house as the present boiler house stands on the site of the proposed works.

BOARD OF WORKS CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.

(Question No. 2000)

Mr. CAIN (Bundoora) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-

1. Whether the Minister has received a report from the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works concerning various matters raised by the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draftsmen of Australia (Victorian Division) at a deputation on 24th August, 1976, and in correspondence before and since the deputation?

2. Whether any decision has been made on any of the submissions put by the association both at the deputation and by correspondence; if so, which submissions?

3. Whether the Minister will take action to ensure that board employees enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment and entitlements as Victorian public servants and employees of other State instrumentalities?

4. Whether a report has been received by the Minister in relation to the board from the Anti-Discrimination Bureau; if so, what action has been taken in respect of the report?

5. Whether the question of terms and conditions of empJoyment of board employees will be referred. to the inquiry into the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works for consideration.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation): The answer supplied by the Minister of Water Supply is, 1. A deputation was not received on 24th August, 1976, but one was received on 2nd

September, 1976, from delegates of the four organizations representing employees of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and the report on the various matters raised by them has been received from the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.

2. All matters raised except continuing superannuation for women upon marriage have been dealt with by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.

Superannuation is stil la matter of investigation but an early resolution is expected.

3. Board employees are employed under conditions set out in a Federal award.

4. Yes. See answer to 2. 5. No. Terms and conditions are award matters.

PRAHRAN COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION.

(Question No. 2005)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Education-

1. When the Prahran College of Advanced Education-( a) obtained approval from the Victorian Institute of Colleges for the purchase of an adjoining carpet factory for a proposed union building; and ( b) requested the Estates Branch to begin proceedings?

2. What has caused the delay in this project, and when it is expected that the property will be purchased?



1. (a) Ist January, 1973. (b) 20th August, 1974.

2. This has been a protracted acquisition complicated by administrative and practical difficulties.

It was necessary to locate alternative premises to which the carpet factory could be successfully relocated, with commercial opportunities equivalent to the existing location. The premises needed to be in a similar area, enabling the carpet manufacturer to retain his established market, in a building that has the capability of being renovated to adequately retail carpet and allied furnishings.

Investigation into available premises was undertaken conjointly for a number of months. On location of the 1087 High Street property the owner appointed an architect to develop the remodellIng proposals. It was with the assistance of the Assistant Chief Architect, Public Works Department and this architect that the details of re-establish-ment were negotiated. .


It was necessary to determine an appropriate compensation for re-establishment and to identify and negotiate all other related expenses and to describe this in an agreement acceptable to both parties.

The settlement was concluded on 25th May, 1977.

GRANTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTRES.

(Question No. 2006)


In respect of grants for senior citizens' centres in 1976--77, 1977-78 and 1978-79-

1. When the Commonwealth requested the State Government to provide a list showing the priority of individual projects and when such a list was provided?

2. Which senior citizens' centres were included on the list, indicating in which order and whether any funds have yet been received from the Commonwealth Government?


1. The request made by the Commonwealth Director-General of Social Security for a determination of the relative priority of each deferred project was contained in a letter dated 16th September 1976. The information requested was sup: plied by my department under date of 19th October, 1976. Revised costs of the various projects were subsequently given on 4th March, 1977.

2. The following list details the projects in relative order of priority-

CENTRE MUNIClPAUTY East Frankston Frankston Sebastopol Sebastopol Tootgarook Flinders Mornington Mornington OIinda- Lillydale

Sassafras Aspendale Chadstone The Basin Essendon Euroa Cora Graves Noble Park Blackburn Northcote Longwarry Dunolly Ascot Vale Wand in Riddell Blairgowrie Frankston Pascoe Vale Cockatoo Stanhope

Session 1977.-318

Chelsea Malvern Knox Essendon Euroa St. Kilda Springva]e Nunawading Northcote Buln Buln Bet Bet Essendon Lillydale Romsey Flinders Frankston Coburg Pakenham Waranga

CENTRE Murchison Carnegie-

Murrumbeena Bayswater Mount Eliza Donald Sun bury North Balwyn Canterbury Penhurst Will Sampson Koo-wee-rup Stratford Cobden Montrose He at hcote Doveton Pakenham Camperdown Traralgon Beaumaris Trafalgar Coburg Ararat Altona Portland Cowes Pascoe Vale Edenhope Japarit Mallacoota Highett Esplanade Blackwood Doncaster Bulleen-Templestowe

AvondaleEast Keilor

MUNIClPAUTY Waranga Caulfield

Knox Mornington Donald Bulla Camberwell Camberwell Mount Rouse Prahran Cranbourne Avon Heytesbury Lillydale McIvor Berwick Pakenham Camperdown Traralgon Sandringham Narracan Coburg Ararat Altona Portland Phillip Island Coburg Kowree Dimboola Orbost Moorabbin Port Melbourne Ballan Doncaster-

Templestowe Doncaster

Templestowe Keilor

No funds have yet been received from the Commonwealth Government in regard to any of the centres listed above.

VOLUNTARY WELFARE WORKERS.

(Question No. 2007) Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the

Minister for Social Welfare-Whether following the recent conference

on volunteerism conducted by the Social Welfare Department and the Victorian Council of Social Service, he will ascertain the legal status of voluntary welfare workers and, in particular, if they are compellable witnesses in court proceedings, and advise the House and the Victorian Council of Social Service the result of his inquiries?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Social Welfare): The answer is-

I have written to the Attorney-General to ascertain the legal status of voluntary welfare workers, in particular, if they are compellable witnesses in court proceedings and I will make that advice available when I receive it within the terms of the honorable member's question.


STATE DANCE COMPANY. (Question No. 2008)


Whether major creditors of the State Dance Company were assured repeatedly by Government officials that Treasury cheques covering their accounts have been issued; if so-( a) whether an assurance was categorically given on at least one occasion that the cheque in question has actually been posted; (b) what responsibility, if any, is accepted by the Government for these assurances; and (c) when the creditors will be paid?


No.

CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

(Question No. 2013)


What consultants have been employed by the Education Department in-(a) 1974-75; (b) 1975-76; and (c) in this financial year to date, indicating the rate of remuneration in each case and the work which has been undertaken by each consultant?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 20th May, 1977, as follows-

(a) Brunswick-Fitzroy Schools Planning Study Group. Fixed price $40,000.

(b) Gardening services. Consultancy on school gardening. $55 per day, four days per week.

Building services. Research and development of a works programme. $1,750 per month.

Computer services. Feasibility study into the over-all computing and forward planning requirements of the Education Department. Fixed price $20,625.

Requirements analysis and general system design for the properties, personnel and pay-roll computer data bases, as recommended in the above feasibility study. Fixed price $63,250.

(c) Committee on religious education in State schools. Research and development of the programme. $392 per month.

Gardening services. Consultancy on school gardening. $60 per day four days per week.

Building services. Research and development of a works programme. $1,900 per month.

Computer services. Assist with the evaluations of proposals and quota~ tions for work involved with the detailed deSign, programming and implemention phase of the properties, personnel and pay-roll sub-systems. $30 per hour for twenty hours.

Detailed design phase for the properties, personnel and pay-roll sub-systems. Fixed price $70,000.

EDUCATION ALLOWANCE. (Question No. 2015)


Whether junior Government scholarship holders are also entitled to receive the education allowance payable to students; if not-(a) why; and (b) what other students are excluded?



(a) Junior scholarships provide a requisites allowance and holders have always been ineligible to receive any other departmental requisite allowance. The education allowances which provide much larger amounts for requisites, rendered the junior scholarships redundant in State schools.

Junior scholarship Education allowance

Allowance Year

9 10 11 12 $14 14 16 34 $50 50 60 70

In registered schools the tuition allowance of $50 made the scholarship more valuable and the awards were retained in preference to the education allowances.

(b) (i) Students in years eleven and twelve undertaking post-secondary vocational preparation courses.

(ii) Students residing outside Victoria.

PAEDIATRIC CLINIC FOR BROADMEADOWS.

(Question No. 2016)

Mr. CULPIN (Glenroy) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

Whether he is aware of the unanimous decision of the Broadmeadows City Council taken on 4th April, 1977, to the effect that the council deplored his insistence that a paediatric clinic, as proposed by the Royal Children's Hospital, be operated on a referral basis and further, that the council fully supported the hospital's proposal and believed· that paediatric care should be


available in close proximity to the people's residence; if so, whether he will reconsider this matter and if not, why?


The Minister of Health is aware of the matter raised in the question. The present policy is that services of the Royal Children',s Hospital in the municipality of Broadmeadows should operate only on a referral basis.

The provision of paediatric care is part of total health care of the community and consequently the delivery of primary paediatric services will continue to be the responsibility of general practitioners. Any specialized care to other problems involving the health of children are then referred by their practitioner to special facilities including the Royal Children's Hospital.

HOSPITALS SUPERANNUATION FUND.

(Question No. 2017)

Mr. ROPER Brunswick) asked the Assitant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

In respect of the Hospitals Superannuation Fund and the improvements which occurred as a result of the Hospitals Superannuation (Amendment) Act 1976-

1. When the improvement came into effect?

2. Whether there are doubts concerning the payment of improved benefits to members of the fund who reached the age of 65 years before the changes came into effect; if so what are these doubts and on what legal opinion they are based?

3. Whether the Government proposes to fulfil its undertakings to those persons who had reached the age of 65 years but had not retired prior to the scheme coming into operation?


1. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Hospitals Superannuation (Amendment) Act 1976 were proclaimed to come into operation on the 15th December, 1976; section 4 was proclaimed to come into operation on the 22nd April, 1977; and section 5 was proclaimed to come into operation on the 1st January, 1977.

2. Yes. The solicitor to the Hospitals Superannuation Board has expressed the view that members who were 65 or over on the 31st December, 1976, cannot become pension contributors.

3. Yes, the matter is being investigated.

MOTOR REGISTRATION AND DRIVER'S LICENCE CHARGES.

(Question No. 2029)

Mr. JASPER (Murray Valley): asked the Minister of Special Educa4

tion, for the Chief Secretary-1. Whether the Minister is aware of the

provision in South Australia allowing for a 50 per cent reduction in registration charges for motor cars and co~cess~ons for drivers' licences for aged, InvalId and widowed pensioners?

2. Whether, as many pensioners in country areas are unable to. take advanta~e of pensioner fare concessIOns on pubhc transport, the Minister will consider the introduction of nominal charges for registration of motor cars and drivers' licences for aged, invalid and widowed pensioners?


1. Yes. I am aware of the concessions that are available to pensioners in South Australia in relation to fees for the registration of motor cars and the issue of drivers' licences.

2. The matter is under examination at present.

STATE DANCE COMPANY. (Question No. 2031)


1. When the State Dance Company of Victoria informed him last year before departing for New Zealand that there had been considerable losses on the Panov tour in Australia, indicating-(a) by what means; (b) which representative or representatives of the company supplied the information; (c) what was the specified loss;. and (d) whether this loss was aggregated WIth earher accounts to give a total company deficit?

2. As the company's advice of the loss was accompanied by the request for an additional $200,OOO-(a) whether the $200,000 was seen as the whole cost of the New Zealand tour; (b) whether the company W<lS fully confident that it would be able to make a profit-(i) after repaying the $200,000; or (ii) incorporating the $200,000 as revenue for the tour; and (c) whether $200,000 was given as the cost of cancelling the tour?

3. Whether consideration was given to the contingency that the New Zealand tour might further reduce the company's capacity to meet debts already incurred in the course of the Panov season; if so, whether legal advice was obtained on the Government involvement in facilitating this course of action on the company's part?



1. On 17th June, 1976, and 1st July, 1976.

la) By letter. b) Mr. S treet er. c) $180,722.

(d) Yes. 2. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable. (c) No.

3. No.

(Question No. 2034)


Whether he received reports from the chairman and/or general manager of the State Dance Company of Victoria separat· ing the finances of the company school from those of its performing group; if so(a) on what date; and (b) whether he will lay the reports on the table of the Library or otherwise make them available to honorable members?


The question presumably refers to Ballet Victoria. Various submissions, requests and correspondence have been received from Ballet Victoria from time to time. Access to the file can be had in the normal way.

(Question No. 2035)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Premier-

1. Whether a letter was sent to the Director of Finance asking for urgent substantial funding to be made to the State Dance Company of Victoria to pay outstanding creditors and meet salaries; if so-( a) on what date; (b) by whom; and (c) in what terms?

2. Whether the letter stated that the amount required was expected to be in the vicinity of $1 million and whether a copy of the letter was shown to him before being sent to the Director of Finance?

3. Whether he sent the Chairman of the State Dance Company of Victoria a letter advising that no funding for any substantial amount would be made until complete information relating to outstanding creditors was made available to the Ministry of thE'! Arts, and then only following an investigation of the company's books and accounts by Ministry and Treasury officers; if so, on what date?


1. On 31st August, 1976, the Director of the Arts sent a letter to the Director of Finance requesting an additional grant to Ballet Victoria.

2. The letter stated that the amount ultimately required might be in the vicinity of $1 million. It was not shown to me before being sent to the Director of Finance.

3. Yes. On 1st September, 1976, a letter was sent to the Chairman of Ballet Victoria.

(Question No. 2037) Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked

the Minister of the Arts-Whether the Finance Officer of the

Ministry of the Arts asked the staff of the State Dance Company of Victoria to vouch for the correctness of any accounts owed in connection with the Panov tour, other than the $180,000 owed for advertising to Foote, Cone and Belding Pty. Ltd.; if 80-(a) which accounts; (b) on what dates; and (c) what was the reason for any such request?

Mr. HAMER (Minister of the Arts): The answer is

Yes. (a) and (b) Not recorded. (c) For inclusion in a report on the

financial situation of Ballet Victoria.


the Minister of the Arts-1. Whether, as Minister of the Arts, he

recommended to himself as Treasurer that there should be an additional Government grant to meet the debts of the State Dance Company of Victoria; if so---(a) on what date; (b) by what means; and (c) on what grounds.

2. Whether advice that the recommendation had been made was sent by letter from the Ministry of the Arts to any creditor of the State Dance Company of Victoria; if so-Ca) on what date; (b) to which creditor or creditors; and (c) in what terms?

3. Whether, as Treasurer, he advised himself as Minister of the Arts that the recommendation was rejected; if so-Ca) on what date; (b) by what means; and (c) on what grounds?


1. No. 2. No. 3. No.


the Minister of the Arts-1. Whether reports were received during

1976 on the deteriorating financial situation of the State Dance Company of Victoria; if so, what was-Ca) the date of each report; and (b) the financial situation set out in each report?


2. Whether at any stage the attention of the Government was drawn to the position of the company by the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation in his capacity as a director of the company; if so-( a) on what date; and (b) in what terms?

3. Whether the projected budget for the Panov tour was approved by the Ministry of the Arts?

Mr. HAMER (Minister of the Arts): The answer is--

1. Yes. (a) (i) 17th June, 1976. (ii) 1st July, 1976. (Hi) 11th August, 1976. (iv) 17th August, 1976. (v) 30th August, 1976. (b) (i) Accumulated deficit $322,722 at

31st May, 1976. (ii) Accumulated deficit $322,722 at 31st

May, 1976. (Hi) Accumulated deficit $602,336 at 30th

June, 1976. (iv) Cl That our accumulated deficit to

31st July will be of the order of $600,000." (v) Accumulated deficit $666,127 at 31st

July, 1976. 2. No. 3. No.

(Question No. 2041)


Whether he stated on 8th December, 1976, in a letter to Actors and Announcers Equity Association, that Ballet Victoria was regarded as the State's dance company but the adoption of this title was the result of an internal decision taken by the company, and had also previously stated publicly that Ballet Victoria is the State ballet company; if so-( a) on what date the internal decision by 'the company to use the title was(i) taken; and (ii) given public effect; and (b) whether there is any indication in representations made to him by creditors of the State Dance Company of Victoria that this action on his part led them to extend credit to the company on the basis that it was Government guaranteed?

Mr. HAMER (Minister of the Arts): The answer is

Yes. (a) (i) Unknown. (ii) The company's letterhead first showed

the title State Dance Company of Victoria in September, 1974.

(b) This is a matter of interpretation.

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS TO SCHOOLS.

(Question No. 2044)

Mr. CA TIDE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Education-

1. What supplementary grants have been provided in Victoria to secondary, technical, and primary schools in each of the past three years, including this year to date?

2. What recommendations were made for alterations to the list of disadvantaged schools by the Victorian Supplementary Grants Committee, what alterations have been made to the list, and when it will be finalized?


1. Supplementary grants provided in Victoria to Cl declared" disadvantaged schools are as follows-

(a) July, 1973, to June, 1974 (b) July, 1974, to June, 1975 (c) July, 1975, to June, 1976 (d) July, 1976, to June, 1977 Total expenditure to June,

1976-(a) + (b) + (c) Estimated expenditure to June,

1977-(d)

Total provided

DMSIONAL PROVISIONS.

$ 1,099,755 4,190,000 4,442,795 4,550,475

9,732,550

4,550,475

14,283,025

Children Share of funds

(1) Primary (2) Secondary (3) Technical .. (4) All metropolitan (5) All country ..

.. 71 per cent

.• 20 per cent 9 per cent

.. 84 per cent

. . 16 per cent

73 per cent 18 per cent 9 per cent

87 per cent 13 per cent

2. In determining the 1977 list of declared schools the Victorian Supplementary Grants Committee made use of the Schools Priority Index prepared by the Planning Services Division of the Education Department. The list submitted by the Supplementary Grants Committee was accepted for declaration and six further schools were added to bring the total number of students to 117,000 as allowed under the Commonwealth-State Agreement.

In 1976 there were 257 declared schools. The 1977 list contains 275 schools. Fifty-six schools were deleted from the 1976 list and 74 schools were added. The 1977 list was made public on 15th April, 1977.


COMMITTEES OF MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITALS. (Question No. 2052)


In respect of committees of management of hospitals, who is the appointee on each

Hospital

After-care .. Airlie Maternity .. Alexander (Castlemaine) .. Alexandra Alfred .. Altona .. Apollo Bay Ararat .. Austin.. ., Baechus Marsh .. Ballarat Beeac .. Benalla Bendigo Bendigo Home .. Berry Street, Child and

Family Care (East Melbourne)

Birregurra Boort Box Hill Burwood Camperdown Casterton Castlemaine . . . . Central Oippsland (Traral-

gon) .. etunes .. Cobram Cohuna Colac .. Coleraine Corryong Creswick Dandenong Daylesford Dimboola Donald Dunolly .. .. East Gippsland (Bairnsdale) Echuca .. Edenhope

Government appointee

Cornell, Brian Charles .. Taylor, Geofl'rey Reginald French, Donald Max .. Boyle, David Ovens .. Habersberger, John Cobell Willis, Raymond James .. Tamblyn, Richard John .. Tivey, Bruce Rowland .. Hepworth, Jobn Albert .. Bond, Neville Stuart, J.P. Heinz, John Handford .. Lang, Donald Fraser .. McDiarmid, Robert Clevedon Shadforth, Roy Mclntosh McKean, Wilton Cameron

Gibbs, Alfred Alien .. HolIoway, Campbell John Wright, David Douglas .. Padgham, Oeorge .. Dodgshun, Robert Mills .. Hill, Oeorge Leslie .. Donald, Robert Stewart .. Muir, Lawrence Ernest ..

Barrow, Harry Oasquaoline Birch, WiIliam Stanley, J.P. Crockett, John Duncan .. Mawson, Kenneth Charles Robbins, Ernest John Finch, Glen Malcolm .. Kaighin, WilIiam Henry Robert Williams, Donald Murton Metcalfe, Donald Henry .. Hauser, Stanley, J.P. . . Michie, Thomas Clerk .. Rye, Kendall Jeft"rey Newitt, Laurance Dahlsen Bryan Raymond McKenzie, Kennetb Rodney Crawford. Mervyn George

board appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 48 (1) (a) if the Hospitals and Charities Act 1958, indicating when they were first appointed and the date of expiration of their present appointment?


Appointment date

22nd July, 1975 16th July, 1974 21st October, 1975 .. 13th November, 1975 16th January, 1968 .. 5th May, 1964 21st October, 1975 .. 21st October, 1975 .. 25th June, 1968 .. 13th March, 1968 .. 16th December, 1969 29th June, 1976 .. 27th August, 1974 .. 13th May, 1974 .. 29th October, 1963 .,

21st May, 1963 23rd April, 1974 .. 3rd December, 1974 6th July, 1971 .. 14th February, 1961 20th July, 1965 .. 11th February, 1968 .. 12th December, 1972 ..

24th July, 1956 .. 5th September, 1967 .. 10th October, 1967 25th June, 1958 7th July. 1970 18th April, 1973 .. 24th January, 1967 .. 15th April, 1975 .. 30th November, 1976 28th June, 1949 30th May, 1961 25th August, 1976 .. 8th September, 1959 22nd December, 1964 15th April, 1969 .. 26th March, 1963 ..

Expiry date

21st July, 1975 15th July, 1977 20th October, 1978 13th November, 1978 15th January, 1980 4th May, 1979 20th October, 1978 20th October, 1978 24th June, 1977 12th March, 1980 15th December, 1978 28th June, 1979 26th August, 1977 13th March, 1980 28th October, 1978

20th May, 1978 22nd April, 1980 2nd December, 1977 4th July, 1977 13th February, 1979 18th July, 1977 10th February, 1980 11th December, 1978

23rd July, 1977 4th September, 1979 9th October, 1979 24th June, 1979 6th July, 1979 17th April, 1979 23rd January, 1979 14th April, 1978 29th November, 1979 27th June, 1979 29th May, 1979 24th August, 1979 7th September, 1977 21st December, 1979 14th April, 1978 25th March. 1978

Eildon .. Southee, Colin .. . . . . 6th April, 1976 197'3' 18th September,

5th April, 1979 Elmore .. Essendon Frankston Oeelong ., Oippsland (Sale) .. Gippsland Geriatric Centre Grace McKellar House

(Geelong) ., .. Greenvale Geriatric Centre Hamilton Hampton Healesville Heathcote Heywood Inglewood Kaniva .. Kerang Kilmore ., Kingston Centre Koroit .. Korumburra Kyabram Kyneton Latrobe Valley (Moe) Lismore Lome .. Ma.::arthur ., .. McCulloch House (Geelong) Maffra .. Maldon Mam·ngatang Mansfield Maroondah

Holmberg, Herbert Henry Fullerton Woods, Norman Albert, J.P. Clark, Max John Wemyss, Bruce.. .. Phillipson, Thomas Edward Appointment pending

David Alan Ray .. .. Gillespie, James Geogre, M.B.E ... Henry, John WiIlil'm .. Chisholm, Robert George Warner, John Vincent .. Dowd, Garrett WiIIillm " McGrath, Joseph Michael Nevins, John Frederick, J.P. WiIliams, Albert John .. Collins, Clarence Hedley, J.P. Quinn, Raymond Edward Wishart, Neil Garnsworthy Urwin, Alan Blair Brumley, Alan Purves .. Haslem, lan Christopher Donovan, Brian Joseph .. McCormack, John Hamees Wellman, Ray Vincent .. McConachy. WilIiam Francis Payne, Beniamin Robert .. Emerson, John Tasman .. Wilson, William Wall ace Freemantle, Colin John .. Tepper, Alan Roy .. Elliolt, Peter Murray William Appointment pending

llnd December, 1964 24th September, 1963 19th June, 1962 25th September, 1974

4th October, 1960 ., 26th August, 1969 .. 2nd July, 1968 .. 13th January, 1976 .. 10th October, 1972 .. 8th March, 1966 10th May, 1977 2nd August, 1966 .. 5th December, 1972 .. 17th June, 1964 ~th Au,!;ust, 1972 9th July, 1968 .. 26th October, 1976 .. 15th January, 1963 .. 29th June, 1976 19th April, 1972 2nd July, 1974 30th November, 1976 26th February, 1974 9th November, 1971 .. 8th February, 1977 .. 2nd February. 1972 .. 18th November, 1969 15th January, 1974 .. 10th September, 1974

17th September, 1979 21st December, 1979 23rd September, 1978 18th June, 1977 24th September, 1977

3rd October, 1978 25th August, 1978 1st July, 1977 12th January, 1979 9th October, 1978 7th March, 1978 9th May, 1980 1st August, 1978 4th December, 1978 16th June, 1979 8th August, 1978 8th July, 1977 25th October, 197Q 14th January, 1978 28th June, 1979 18th April, 1978 Ist July, 1977 29th November, 1979 25th February, 1980 8th November, 1977 7th February, 1980 1st February 1978 17th November, 197& 14th January, 1980 9th September, 1977


Hospital Government appointee Appointment date Expiry date

Maryborough Mildura Minyip .. Moorabbin Mooroopna .. Mordialloc-Cheltenham

Mowbray, Charles Douglas Russell, Charles Frederick Chappell, Graeme Ronald Appointment pending Riordan, Kevin Francis ..

Community Brown, John Joseph .. Mortlake McInnes, CoHn Lachlan .. ~~~~~ll Eliza Geriat;i~ Knight, Eric Harold

Centre .. .. Mount Royal (parkville) .. Myrtleford Nathalia Nhill .. Nwnurkah Oakleigh Omeo .. Orbost .. Ouyen .. Ovens and Murray Home

(Beech worth) .. Ovens (Beechworth) Penshurst Port Fairy Portland .. Preston and Northcote Prince Henry's .. . . Queen Elizabeth Geriatric

Centre .. Queen Victoria .. Ripon Peace Robinvale Rochester .. Royal Children's Royal Dental .. Royal District

Service .. NursU;g

Beard, Lloyd George .. Stevens, Thom!'s Neal Duncan Boyd, William Thomas .. Gundry. Richard Edward Palmer, Charles Churchill Doyle, David Frands .. Hutchins, Henry Donald McKenzie, Alan Young .. Coulston, Reginald Thomas Edgar, Robert Noel

McKenzie-McHarg. David Bailey, Graeme John ., McCulloch, David Craik Conlan, David Montague Barker, Ronald Roy ChesseIl, Arthur John White, Lindsay Pynor

Clamp, Charles Henry Donegan, John Henry Davis, Robert William SpiIler, Arthur Ewens .. Westcott, Herbert Ronald Ferguson, Donald McLeish Bamford, AlIan Edrnond

Stevens, Thomas Neal Duncan Nave, John Lionel .. Royal Melbourne

Royal Talbot .. Royal Victorian Eye

a~d Rashleigh, William Francis

Ear.. .. Royal Women's .. Rupanyup Rutherglen Sandringham Seymour .. Shelly Memorial

~~~~~n . 'Memori'a" (Caulfield) ..

Southern Peninsula .. South Gippsland (Foster) Springvale St. Arnaud St. George's Stawell .. Sunshine Swan Hill Tallangatta Tawonga " ., Terang (Norah Cosgrave) .. Timboon " ., Upper Goulburn (Woods

Point) Wangaratta Waranga Warracknabeal Warrnambool Werribee .. .. West Gippsland (Warragul) Western General (Foots-

Hambleton, James McConnell Leckie, Leslie Gordon Francis Hamilton, Kenneth lan ., Milton, Michael John .. McKemmish, Henry Jackson Hawking, Bruce William Pound, Phillip Hugh, J.P. " Waldron, Stanley William, M.B.E.

Thomson, WilIiam Richardson Evans, WaIter Arthur ., Gardiner, WilIiam Henry Appointment pending Walsh, Arthur Ernest, M.B.E. Retchford, Lindsay .. McMullin, Robert Keith Ba wden, Alfred Grenville Logan, Donald Alexander Coulthard, Gordon Rosslyn 'i ine, Bruce Leonard Kenna, Laurence James .. Jepson, Kenneth Neil

Stewart, Hector ., Macgeorge, Alexander Luxmore Richards, Maxwell Gordon Thorburn, John Joseph .. Hooton, Alfred. . . . Henderson, Edgar Maurice Lawson, Campbell Ray

cray) Bailey, Albert Joseph Westernport (Koo-wee-

(up) Appointment pending Will aura Millear, Ruth (Mrs.) William Angliss (Upper

Fern Tree Gully) Williamstown .. Wimmera (Horsham) Winchelsea Wodonga Wonthaggi Woorayl Wycheproof Yarram Yarrawonga Yea

Patterson, James Winters Caithness, Lindsay George Lovett, Keith Harold .. Henderson, David John .. Rutkowski, Andrew Witold Appointment pending .. Nelson, Arthur Edward .. Larmour, Rugby Winter .. O'Bryan, Loughnan Jack Wilson, John Cuthbert ., Coonan, Gerald Joseph ..

10th August, 1971 .. 9th August, 1977 29th September, 1963 28th September, 1978 25th February, 1975.. 24th February, 1978

4th May, 1949 13th May, 1979

22nd September, 1953 21st September, 1977 19th October, 1971 " 18th October, 1977 10th February, 1976 9th February, 1979

25th November, 1975 3rd August, 1965 .. 25th November, 1975 22nd November, 1960 2nd December, 1968 .. 3rd February, 1967 .. 21st February, 1950 .. 5th August, 1975 25th June, 1975 28th May, 1974

5th May, 1965 10th September, 1974 21st December, 1971 .. 22nd April, 1975 29th June, 1976 .. lOth September, 1974 30th November, 1971

15th January, 1963 10th May, 1977 28th May, 1974 20th August, 1957 .. 18th September, 1973 20th December, 1955 8th March, 1977

5th March, 1968 9th August, 1972 12th June, 1956

27th November. 1973 28th May, 1957 .. 26th February, 1974 7th December, 1976 .. 9th June, 1970 10th May, 1977 7th June, 1966 .. 27th February, 1962

10th May. 1955 31st July, 1973 .. 14th January, 1976 ..

14th May, 1957 .. 26th October, 1976 .. 29th March, 1977 .. 6th October, 1970 .. 25th September, 1973 29th June, 1965 21st October, 1975 8th July, 1952 22nd May, 1973

13th March, 1963 .. 14th December, 1954 .. 25th September, 1973 8th August, 1961 .. 15th January, 1957 .. 20th November, 1962 20th July, 1965

17th August, 1954

14th March, 1962

24th November, 1978 2nd August, 1977 24th November, 1978 21st November, 1978 1st December, 1977 2nd February, 1979 20th February, 1980 4th AUgust, 1978 24th June, 1978 27th May, 1977

4th May, 1977 9th September, 1977 20th December, 1977 21st April, 1978 28th June, 1979 9th September, 1977 29th November, 1977

14th January, 1978 9th May, 1980 27th May, 1977 19th August, 1978 17th September, 1979 19th December, 1979 7th March, 1980

4th March, 1980 8th August, 1978 11th June, 1977

26th November. 1979 27th May, 1978 25th February, 1980 6th December, 1979 8th June, 1979 9th May, 1980 5th June, 1978 26th February, 1980

9th May, 1979 30th July, 1979 13th January, 1979

13th May, 1978 25th October, 1979 28th March, 1980 5th October, 1979 24th September, 1979 28th June. 1917 20th October, 1978 7th July, 1979 21st May, 1979

12th March, 1978 13th December, 1978 24th September. 1979 7th August, 1979 14th January. 1978 19th November, 1977 19th July. 1977

16th AUgust, 1978

13th March, 1980

6th June, 1961 5th June, 1979 29th March, 1949 " 28th March, 1979 15th November, 1949 14th November, 1979 7th December, 1976.. 6th December, 1979 30th July, 1972 29th July, 1978

23rd June, 1959 .. 27th October. 1953 .. 19th October, 1971 .. 28th August, 1973 14th May, 1974

22nd June, 1977 26th October, 1977 10th October, 1977 27th August. 1979 13th May, 1977


PORTABLE CLASS-ROOMS. (Question No. 2053)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Education-

In respect of portable class-rooms-1. What provision is made for insulation.

exterior sun blinds and fans, respectively? 2. Whether consideration has been given

to improving the comfort of staff and students working within such class-rooms; if so, what consideration?



1. All relocatable class-rooms have insulation in the roof and all buildings constructed after 1972 contain wall insulation.

Exterior sun blinds are not provided; however, heat resistant glass has been provided in buildings constructed since 1973. Buildings constructed prior to 1973 were provided with venetian blinds to the north aspect. The buildings are sited with the windows orientated north and south.

Requests from schools located in the north western sector of the State for provision of air circulating fans in portable class-rooms will be considered on their merits.

2. Over the next few years it is proposed to implement a programme of improving the internal and external features of the early type of relocatable building. The Public Works Department is presently preparing a scheme of modifications for consideration.

MOUNT ROYAL SPECIAL HOSPITAL FOR THE AGED.

(Question No. 2055)


In respect of the Mount Royal Special Hospital for the Aged, what is the current average waiting time for persons classified as urgent admission, specifying the waiting times for males and females, respectively?


I~.is no.t. possible to define an "average" waItmg tIme when the span of time can range from a few days to a few years. Each prospective patient is assessed by professional health workers so that the most appropriate service to meet the individual's needs may be provided.

Under this programme, if there is a need for hospitalization for treatment of an acute condition, this will be arranged without delay. There is no waiting list for persons requiring medical care.

PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN BRUNSWICK ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 2056) Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the

Minister of Education-In respect of each State School in the

electoral district of Brunswick-1. What is the Teachers Tribunal staffing

schedule? 2. What is the Education Department's

staffing schedule? 3. How many staff are presently teaching

at the school? 4. What requests have been received from

each school concerning staff shortages and what action has been taken?

5. How many migrant English teachers were employed at each school during 1976 and how many are now employed?

6. How many migrant pupils are at each school, specifying the number classified as needing migrant English assistance?

7. What resources are available to these schools to enable them to adequately cope with newly-arrived Lebanese students?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated 24th August, 1977, as follows-

The position as at the 15th August, 1977 is as follows-Secondary Schools Division Brunswick High School

1. 39 + principal = 40. 2. 56·2. 3. 55·5 + one from beginning of third

term. 4. (a) Request for a careers teacher. Request agreed to and a senior teacher

appointed to position. (b) General request for over base staffing

due to great number of migrants and in particular the influx of non-English-speaking Lebanese migrants.

Staffing officer has promised consideration for schools which may be disadvantaged with regard to other schools.

5. Three migrant English teachers in 1976. Six migrant English teachers in 1977.

6. 735 migrants, of whom 600 need migrant English assistance.

7. 50 Lebanese students have not been to school for three years and many have little schooling at all. School resources

(1) Ethnic aide who speaks Greek and English.

(2) Foreign language assistant who speaks Greek and English.


(3) Graduate social worker trainee for two hours per day who has the assistance of a Lebanese interpreter.

(4) One Commonwealth demountable class-room.

(5) Six migran,t English teachers. Brunswick East Hjgh School

1. 27·3 + principal = 28·3.

2. 51·2. 3.49'8. 4. (a) Request for physical education

teachers. At present the department is unable to

supply physical education teachers. (b) Request for Turkish teacher. One teacher appointed. (c) Request for two maths and one Eng

lish/ drama teachers. This request is at present under consider

ation by the Secondary staffing officers. 5. Migrant English teachers 1976-5·5.

Migrant English teachers 1977-6·1. 6. Number of migrant pupils 520. Number who need migrant English assist

ance-520. 7. 25 Lebanese students.

Resources (a) Migrant English teachers. (b) Use of house next to school. (c) Teacher's aide in school who speaks

some Lebanese. (d) Grant of $400 by the Advisory Coun

cil of school towards the purchase of suitable books.

(e) Help in translation from Brunswick Health Group. Moreland High School

1. 28·0 + principal = 29·0. 2.42,6. 3.46'3. 4. (a) Application for time fraction in

creases for Miss Grindrod, Mr. Reynolds and Ms. J. Thomas. All approved.

(b) Librarian to replace one who resigned on March 31st. No appointment is possible at this stage.

5. Migrant English teachers 1976-3·1. Migrant English teachers 1977-4·1.

6. Number of migrants-503. Number who need migrant English assistance-300.

7. Resources (a) Migrant English teachers are assist

ing Lebanese-22 are initial English language learners.

(b) Greek language assistant. (c ) Lebanese-Turkish language assis

tant. (d) A number of Lebanese speak some

French.

(e) Preston Regional Office (Northern Divisional Office of Education) helps with an Arabic social worker who visits the school once in three weeks. Princes Hill High School

1. 31·3 + principal = 32·3. 2. 50·1. 3.54'5. 4. (a) Application for allotment of two

full-time staff for Mirimbah Country Centre (school camp). Approved by staffing officer.

(b) Requests for: ( 1) English/History teacher to replace one teacher who went on confinement leave on March 13th, 1977. (2) Drama teacher to replace one teacher who resigned on 27th February, 1977. Both requests were not granted as Princes Hill High School was at the time over three teachers above base entitlement and now the school is 4·4 over the base.

5. Number of migrant English teachers in 1976-4·6. Number of migrant English teachers in 1977-4·6.

6. Number of migrant students-363. All need assistance.

7. Number of Lebanese in school-18. Resources

( a) Migrant English teachers. (b) Large ran~e of books for assisting

migrants in learnmg English. (c) Small teaching rooms for migrants. (d) Language laboratory in school. (e) Liaison with Brunswick Health

Centre where there is a Lebanese woman assistant. Brunswick Technical School

1. 30. 2. 43 equivalent full-time class-room

teachers. 3. 46 equivalent full-time class-room

teachers. 4. Requests

1 Library 1 Turkish teacher 1 Art 1 Fitting/machining

Action 6/10 appointed

1 appointed 1 appOinted 1 appointed

5. 1976-3·5. 1977-3'5. 6. 240, 70 need assistance. 7. Two teachers speak Arabic and one

of these assists the Migrant Education Centre. Primary Schools Division 1213 Brunswick

1. Total establishment of 27 teachers including principals and. two . non-tea~hi!1g vice-principals and not mcludmg specIahst staff.

2 Total establishment of 35 teachers including principal and two non-teaching, viceprincipals and two librarians, one art/craft and one physical education teacher.


3. One principal, two. vice-principals, 30 class-rQQm teachers, five migrant educatiQn teachers, two. art/craft teachers, Qne physical educatiQn teacher, two. librarians and Qne teacher fQr Early ChildhQQd DevelQpment PrQgramme.

4. Three resignatiQns will Qccur at the beginning Qf term 3. The Primary staffing Qfficers have replacements under cQnsideratiQn.

5. 1976-2·5. 1977-5. 6. 687 pupils require assistance.

3179 Brunswick East 1. TQtal establishment Qf fQurteen

teachers including principal and nQt including specialist teachers.

2. TQtal establishment Qf nineteen teachers including principal, Qne librarian, Qne art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, thirteen class-rQQm teachers, Qne librarian, Qne art/ craft teacher and three migrant teachers.

4. No. requests have been received CQncerning general staff shQrtages.


4399 Brunswick NQrth West 1. TQtal establishment Qf twelve teachers

including Qne principal excluding specialist staff.

2. TQtal establishment Qf sixteen teachers including Qne principal, Qne librarian and Qne art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, sixteen class-rQQm teachers, Qne librarian, Qne art/craft teacher and 1·5 migrant educatiQn teachers.


5. 1976-1·0. 1977-1'5. 6. 169 pupils require assistance.

3585 Brunswick NQrth 1. TQtal establishment Qf 28 teachers in

cluding Qne principal, two. nQn-teaching viceprincipals and nQt including specialist teachers.

2. TQtal establishment Qf 37 teachers including Qne principal two. nQn-teaching vice-principals, two. librarians, Qne art/craft teacher and Qne physical educatiQn teacher.

3. One principal, two. nQn-teaching viceprincipals, 34 class-rQQm teachers, two. librarians, Qne art/craft teacher, Qne physical educatiQn teacher, 3· 8 migrant teachers and Qne teacher Qn O· 5 time fQr Early ChildhQQd DevelQpment PrQgramme.


5. 1976-3·4. 1977-3·8. 6. 703 pupils require assistance.

2743 Brunswick SQuth

1. TQtal establishment Qf nine teachers including Qne principal excluding specialist staff.

2. TQtal establishment Qf fQurteen teachers including Qne principal, Qne librarian, Qne art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, thirteen class-rQQm teachers, Qne librarian, Qne art/ craft teacher, Qne QPPQrtunity remedial teacher, 1 . 2 migrant teachers and Qne teacher fQr Early ChildhQQd DevelQpment PrQgramme.



2890 Brunswick West 1. TQtal establishment Qf eight teachers

including principal excluding specialist staff. 2. TQtal establishment Qf thirteen

teachers including Qne principal, Qne librarian and Qne art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, nine class-rQQm teachers, Qne librarian, Qne art/craft teacher, 1·3 child migrant teachers and Qne teacher Qn O' 5 time fQr Early ChildhQQd DevelQpment PrQgramme.



1252 CarltQn NQrth 1. TQtal establishment of eight teachers

including Qne principal excluding specialist staff.

2. TQtal establishment Qf fQurteen teachers including Qne principal, Qne librarian and one art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, ten class-rQQm teachers, Qne librarian, Qne art/craft teacher, Qne QPportunity remedial teacher and 1· 5 Child Migrant educatiQn teachers.

4. No. requests have been received CQncerning general staff shortages.

5. 1976-2. 1977-1' 5. 6. 135 pupils require assistance.

3110 Merri 1. TQtal establishment Qf seventeen

teachers including one principal and Qne nQn-teaching vice-principal excluding specialist staff.

2. TQtal establishment Qf 25·5 teachers, including Qne principal, Qne nQn-teaching vice-principal, 1· 5 librarian, Qne art/craft teacher and Qne physical educatiQn teacher.

3. One principal, Qne nQn-teaching viceprincipal, 21 class-room teachers, 1'5 librarian, Qne art/craft teacher, Qne physical educatiQn teacher, Qne QPportunity remedial teacher and 2'3 child migrant educatiQn teachers.

4. No. requests have been received ooncerning general staff shQrtages.


5. 1976-1·3. 1977-2'3. 6. 346 pupils require assistance.

2837 Moreland 1. Total establishment of 30 teachers in

cluding one prinCipal and two non-teaching vice-principals excluding specialist staff.

2. Total establishment of 38 teachers including one prinCipal, two non-teaching viceprincipals, two librarians, one art/craft teacher and one phYSical education teacher.

3. One principal, two non-teaching viceprincipals, 35 class-room teachers, 1 ·5 librarians, one physical education, one· art/ craft teacher and four migrant teachers.

4. No requests have been received concerning general staff shortages.


2955 Princes Hill 1. Total establishment of fifteen teachers

including principal, excluding specialist staff. 2. Total establishment of 20 teachers in

cluding one principal, one librarian and one art/craft teacher.

3. One principal, eighteen class-room teachers, one librarian, one art/craft teacher, one physical education teacher and two child migrant teachers.

4. No requests have been received con-cerning general staff shortages.

5. 1976-1. 1977-2. 6. 138 pupils require assistance. 7. (All schools). An Arabic ethnic consultant has been ap

p<)!nted to the Child Migrant Education Branch and is available on request to various schools. This consultant is able to provide available background information on the Lebanese students and assist with communication between schools and parents. Interpreters are available on request to assist with communication between schools and parents of Lebanese children.

APPRENTICES IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL

HEALTH AUTHORITY. (Question No. 2062)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the .Minister of Health-

1. In what trades apprentices have been employed in the Department of Health and the Mental Health Authority, respectively, in the past six years?

2. What was the total number of-( a) apprentices employed; and (b) first-year apprentices engaged, by each of the branches of the department and authority in each year from 1970 to 1976, and in this year to date?


1. (a) Mental Health AuthorityCarpentry and joinery Cooking Electrical mechanic Fitting and turning Gardening and turf management Painting, decorating and

signwriting Plumbing and gasfitting

(b) Tuberculosis BranchCooking

2. (a) Mental Health Authority 21 Tuberculosis Branch 1

(b) Mental Health Tuberculosis Authority Branch

1970 to 1974 Nil. 1975 18 1976 Nil. 1 1977 Nil.

FOREST IN PUCKAPUNYAL AREA.

(Question No. 2063)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Forests-

In respect of the Commonwealth Government proposal to take over 12,000 hectares of forest in the Puckapunyal area, whether an agreement has been reached between the State and Commonwealth Governments on the leasing of such land?

Mr. I. W. SMITH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer supplied by the Minister of Forests is-

No agreement has yet been reached with respect to the State forest in the Puckapunyal area. Discussions are still proceeding between the State and Commonwealth Governments.

LAND IN PUCKAPUNY AL AREA. (Question No. 2064)


Whether the Government has yet considered an environmental study in relation to proposals by the Commonwealth Government to purchase 20,000 hectares of land for the Puckapunyal Training Centre; if so when the environmental study was received, when it was considered, and with what result?


Yes; 4th March. 1976. The draft environmental impact statement (E.I.S.) was then considered by relevant State Government agencies and local shires. On 8th July, 1976,


I wrote to the Prime Minister seeking clarification on matters of concern to the Victorian Government arising out of the E.I.S. The Commonwealth Government subsequently provided an addendum to its environmental impact statement which was also considered by all interested parties. I then wrote again to the Prime Minister on 8th June, 1977, outlining proposals for future management of the area with a view to satisfying both State and Commonwealth responsibilities.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS. (Question No. 2065)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

In respect of industrial accidents in Victoria-

1. What percentage of total usage of Victorian hospitals is taken up by industrial accident cases?

2. What percentage this represents as(a) in-patient bed days; and (b) out-patient visits?

3. What is the annual estimated cost of hospitalization due to industrial accidents?

4. How these figures compare with motor accident figures in the percentages of-(a) total hospital usage; (b) in-patient bed days; (c) out-patient visits; and (d) annual costs for hospital expenses?


1. During the last financial year 1976-77, actual figures are only available for a tenmonth period. To give a figure for the twelve months, the last two months have been estimated.

The bed usage for industrial accidents was 1·8 per cent.

2. (a) 1 ·8 per cent of total bed occupancy.

(b) Out-patient visit figures are not readily available. It would require a survey of the whole pu hUc hospital field being undertaken to ascertain such figures.

3. For the financial year 1976-77 the estimated in-patient cost is $8,350,000.

4. (a) Total bed occupancy of motor accident cases was 3·25 per cent.

(b) 3·25 per cent. (c) Refer to answer supplied for part

2 (b). (d) Estimated cost for financial year

1976-77 is $14,854,000.

INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES.

(Question No. 2066)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Transport-

1. How many workers employed by the Railways Department, the Country Roads Board, and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board, respectively, were injured during 1976?

2. How many injuries were reported during that period?

3. What the total work force was employed during that period?

4. How many man-hours were lost as a result of injury?

5. How the 1976 figures compare with the previous four years?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport): The answer isVictorian Railways Board

1 and 2. 6,148 accidents were reported on workers compensation claims during 1976.

3. The total number of staff including casual employees as at 30th December. 1976, was 24,488.

4. The Victorian Railways Board does not keep statistics on a man-hours lost basis. Details on a lost time frequency basis in accordance with the Australian standard are used and during 1976 the average was 51 injuries per million manhours exposure.

5. Year 1972 1973 1974 1975

Country Roads Board

Injuries reported 6,595 6,374 6,383 6,754

The Country Roads Board maintain figures for financial years.

The table below sets out the position as far as the Country Roads Board is concerned-

Financial year 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 197~7S 1975-76

Injuries involving loss of work time 314 355 315 380 397 Reported injuries 1,534 1,454 1,357 1,408 1,433 Total work force 4,724 4,744 4,795 4,833 4,845 Man-days lost .. 2,113 2,051 1,998 2,222 2,375


Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board

1. 1,371. 2. 1,711. 3.4,540. -t. 40,374 man-hours. 5. 1972-1,668.

1973-1,787. 1974-1,703. 1975-1,766. 1976-1,711.

INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF FUEL AUTHORITIES.

(Question No. 2068)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

1. How may workers employed by the State Electricity Commission and the Gas and Fuel Corporation, respectively, were injured during 1976?


3. What the total work force was during that period?




1. The statistical records of injuries kept by the State Electricity Commission of Vic-

toria relate to disabling injuries as defined in Australian Standard CZ6-1966, which provides that only injuries which result in loss of one day or more be recorded. Therefore, the following information does not include work injuries which did not incur at least one full day's absence.

There were 623 employees of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria injured during the 1975-76 year.

2. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria reported 612 disabling injuries during the year ended 30th June, 1976.

The number of disabling injuries reported by the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria during the year 1975-76 was 103.

3. The total work force of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria as at 30th June, 1976, was 18,572 and of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria 4,245.

4. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria suffered a loss of 120,256 manhours as a result of injury whilst the loss to the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria was 34,054 man-hours.

In respect to the State Electricity Commission of Victoria you are reminded that the figure quoted in relation to the number of accidents refers only to accidents resulting in disabling injuries.

5. The following tables show the total number of employees, the total number of accidents and the man-hours lost during each of the past five years as at 30th June-

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION OF VICTORIA.

1976 1975 1974 1973 19n

Number of disabling injuries 612 657 561 505 529 Total work force at 30th June 18,572 18,478 18,519 18,975 19,593 Man-hours lost 120,256 126,040 139,344 148,256 139,984

GAS AND FUEL CORPORATION OF VICTORIA.

1976 1975 1974 1973 1972

Number of accidents 623 602 460 386 451 Total work force as at 30th June 4,245 4,176 4,094 4,092 3,314 Man-hours lost 34,000 34,000 21,000 19,000 20,000

You are reminded again that the figures recorded by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria relate only to accidents resulting in disabling injury.


INJURIES TO MEMBERS OF POLICE FORCE AND COUNTRY

FIRE AUTHORITY.

(Question No. 2070)


1. How many members of the Victoria Police Force and the Country Fire Authority, respectively, were injured during 1976?


3. What the total workforce was during that period?




1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Details are--

Number of Number of claims lodged employees injured Hours lost through injury for Number of employees

workers compensation Year

Police Country Police Country Police Country Police Country Fire Fire Fire Fire Force Authority Force Authority Force Authority Force Authority

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

* * * * •

56 59 90 83

114

661 56 756 59 794 90 801 83 753 114

5,410 319 • 1,086 5,628 331 * 1,725 5,841 371 * 4,960 6,156 398 * 9,514 6,487 433 * 5,439

·Information not readily available.

INJURIES TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMPLOYEES.

(Question No. 2071)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. How many workers employed by the Department of Health were injured during 1976?


3. What the total work force was during that period?




1. 2,095.

2. 2,107.

3. 9,162.

4. 137,236.

5. The number of man-hours lost per reported injury decreased steadily from 4·3 in 1972 to 3·90 in 1976.

BALLARAT EAST HIGH SCHOOL. (Question No. 2079)


In regard to the Ballarat East High School-

1. What is the current enrolment? 2. What is the staffing target establish

ment? 3. What is the actual number of staff

appointed? 4. Whether the Education Department

has received a request from the school for extra staff to meet remedial English and mathematics needs; if so, whether such staff are to be appointed and, if not, why?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 31st August, 1977, as follows-

"I am now in a position to advise that as at the 30th August, 1977, the position is as follows-

1. 877. 2. 53·4. 3. 54'5 plus one who takes up duty on

the 5th September-equals 55·5. I desire to add that two other teachers

will return to duty on completion of their leave; one on the 4th October and the other on the 14th October, 1977.


When this occurs the actual number of staff will be 4'1 teachers over the base entitlement.

4. No high school is entitled to a set number of remedial teachers. All teachers experience problems of individual differences among pupils in their classes, therefore all teachers are professional remedial teachers. Where remedial problems are beyond the range of the class-room teacher, smaller withdrawal groups should be organized by the principal of the school with the staff at his disposal.

As Ballarat East High School is staffed over the base the school can cope with remedial problems satisfactorily."

SCHOOL MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMME.

(Question No. 2081)


How many teachers were employed in the school migrant education programme in Victoria at-Ca) October, 1976; (b) December, 1976; and (c) February, 1977, and how many are employed at present?


As this matter comes under his jurisdiction, the Minister of Special Education has advised the honorable member by letter dated 10th June, 1977, as follows-

(a) 1,103; (b) 1,024; (c) 1,062. The number of teachers employed as at

31st May, 1977-1,087.

CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL. (Question No. 2082)


1. What is the total enrolment of-Ca) school-age students in the primary, secondary, technical and special categories, respectively; and ( b) mature-age students?

2. What is the total number of students in each of the above categories in each region?

3. HC'w many school-age children are isolated?

4. What is the total-Ca) professional; and (b) Public Service staff of the school?

5. What is the total recurrent grant for the school, indicating the financial totals in each component of the grant, including(a) education allowances; (b) direct grant; (c) travelling allowances; (d) stores branch; ( e) library; and (f) others?

6. How often teaching staff are able to visit-Ca) school-age; and (b) mature-age students in the country and city, respectively?

7. What provisions are made for practical work for secondary students, particularly in science areas?

8. To which Education Department division the principal of the school is responsible?

9. What opportunity exists for parent involvement in the management of the school?

10. Whether there are plans to involve the school in the Country Education Programme?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 10th June, 1977, as follows-Primary Correspondence School

1. Total enrolment of-(a) school-age students in primary

(i) (ii) Primary Physically Total general handicapped

]976 911 307 1,2]8

April, 1977 547 154 701

(b) mature-age students-the physically handicapped section of this school is responsible for the teaching of illiterate adults. The total number as at May, 1977. is 41.

2. Total number of students in each of the above categories in each region-

The numbers given below represent(a) enrolment as at April, 1977; (b) full-time students.

Regions Primary Physically Illiterate handicapped adults

Ballarat .. 3 7 1 Bendigo 4 2 2 Benalla .. 5 2 2 Gippsland 23 8 3 Horsham 5 2 Sunshine 7 3 Knox ]2 30 7 Frankston 27 7 Prahran 2 4 Preston .. 1 26 8 Geelong 5 23 2

3. Number of isolated students has been taken to represent children living beyond the statutory distance of the nearest primary school. Primary- Victoria Riverina

58 16 Physically Victoria Riverina

handicapped- 10


4. Total professional staffFull-time Part-time

Total

44 3

47

5. School grants-( a) Education allowance-full-time students living in Victoria, students who have been out of Victoria for a period of less than twelve months, missionaries and those of the Diplomatic Corps overseas are entitled to the educational allowance.

(b) Direct grant-see secondary. (c) Travelling allowance-primary gen

eral have never been refused travelling expenses to visit children in isolated areas but at the same time have never been given any fixed amount for visits to isolated students in country areas.

Physically-handicapped section does receive a travelling allowance from Special Services-the amount for 1977 being $6,000.

(d) Stores Branch-see secondary.

(e) Library-$500 per annum. This covers predominantly books for the use by children.

<f) Others. Primary general---direct grant incorporated with secondary; physically handicapped-1976-77 allowance, $1,400.

6. (a) Visits by teaching staff to students.

(i) Primary general-where possible, and depending on the availability of staff, students are visited. Students close to Melbourne are visited annually--e.g. Gladysdale area. It is the policy to visit as many students in Victoria on an annual basis. This year the visiting programme will include Gippsland, Western and Northern Victoria. Riverina area has not been visited in the past two years.

(ii) Physically handicapped-each child in Prahran, Preston, Franks to n, Sunshine and Knox regions receives one visit per week. Children in country regions are usually not seen but on two occasions in the past two years a visiting teacher has visited the special school in Bendigo and Ballarat. Geelong has a full-time visiting teacher who works in Geelong hospital five mornings a week and visits the remaining children once weekly.

(b) Mature-age students-Visits: Nil. Secondary Correspondence School

1. Total enrolment as at 23rd May, 1977-

(a) school-age students in secon-dary category 2,418

(b) mature-age students in secon-dary category 569

Total 2,987

There is no technical section of the school.

2. Total number of students in each of the above categories in each region-

School-age Mature-age Region students in students in

secondary secondary category category

Frankston .. 373 75 Knox 327 84 Prahran 253 80 Preston 229 98 Sunshine 156 54 Ballarat 93 17 Benalla 229 31 Bendigo 191 50 Oeelong 248 31 Horsham 127 10 Moe 192 39

2,418 569

3. Number of isolated school age children beyond statutory distance-39

4. (a) Total professional staff-l 04 (equivalent full-time 92·6).

,(b) Total public service staff-24·5 5. Grants (a) Education allowances

Years 7 and 8 $40 Years 9 and 10 $50 Year 11 $60 Year 12 $70

for full-time students living in Victoria, students who have been out of Victoria for a period of less than twelve months and children of diplomats and missionaries serving overseas.

(b) Direct grant-For 1976-77-$2,500 for whole school i.e. primary, physically handicapped and secondary.

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Travelling allowance-It has been the practice of visiting teachers to claim on a monthly basis.

Stores Branch-An allocation of $50,000 for 1976-77.

LibrarJ. 1976 Commonwealth library

grant-$1,25O Up to and including 1976 requisi

tion on Stores Branch has been the main source of supply.

Others-nothing of a recurrent nature· separate submissions are made for finance for projects such as: new printing machines, production of A-V units in maths, geography, etc.


6. Visits by teaching staff to students. By-

A Visiting teachers-the secondary section has 2· 25 teachers who visit-

1. School-age children in the metropolitan regions not in attendance at school. These visits are made on a regular basis.

Frequency of the visits depends on the needs of the individual student but on the average students are seen once a month.

2. School-age children in country regions not in attendance at school or continuing with secondary education at a primary school or higher education school. These visits are made on an annual basis.

B. Subject teachers who visit individuals, institutions or schools as required. These visits are irregular and infrequent.

This year these visits will be scheduled on a group teacher-group school basis, to country areas e.g. Geelong, QueenscIiff and Lorne are being visited on 1st June by teachers of German, Accounting and Legal Studies.

Visits to mature-age students in both metropolitan and country regions are incidental.

In 1977, one day seminars (mainly at higher school certificate level) in some subjects are being held. These are available to both school-age and mature-age students. 7. Provisions for practical work for

secondary students. Art : Years 7 to 11 forward practical

work to the school. Year 12 students must arrange to have

the practical work of higher school certificate art supervised by a qualified teacher as the school teaches only the appreciation section of the course.

Needlecraft: All work is forwarded to the school.

In the main in art and needlecraft students provide their own materials.

Geography: Year 11-1 week's Geography camp.

Science: Years 7 and 8-practical work involved can be performed in the home. Much of the materials and equipment is of a homely nature. Special requirements are provided in kits appropriate to the unit being studied.

Year 9 and 100not taught in 1977. Years 11 and 12-the practical work

involved is such that access to an adequate laboratory is required. In addition the supervision of a qualified teacher is required. 8. The principal of the primary section

is answerable to the Director of Primary Education.

The teacher in charge of the physically handicapped section is answerable to the Director of Special Services.

The prinCipal of the secondary school is answerable to the Director of Secondary Education.

9. At present no opportunities exist for parental involvement in the management of the school.

10. The Country Education Programme is in its initial planning stages and no plans have been made to date to involve the Correspondence School.

ALLEGED BRIBING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.


the Premier-1. Whether he is aware that the United

States company, J. Ray McDermott and Co., of New Orleans, Louisiana, has filed a return with the Securities and Exchange Commission admitting payment of bribes to Government officials in Australia between 1971 and 1976?

2. In view of the seriousness of these allegations whether he can give assurances that no Victorian Government officials are involved?


As far as I can ascertain at this point no official of the Victorian Government has been involved in any transactions referred to in the April, 1977, report to the Securities and Exchange Commission of the audit committee of the board of directors of J. Ray McDermott and Co. Inc.

A statement to the press by the Public Affairs Manager, J. Ray McDermott (Australia) Pty. Ltd. indicates that the only questionable transaction in Australia known to the audit committee related to one isolated payment, made to a health inspector for private consulting work done for the company's Australian operation, and that the payment was probably proper under Australian law.

I am advised that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been seeking further information and I expect to be informed of any outcome.

CANCER RESEARCH. (Question No. 2094)


How much money was allocated by the(a) Commonwealth Government; and (b) State Government, to cancer research in Victoria in each of the past three financial years?



It is not possible to define the amount of money allocated for medical research purposes which is specifically used for cancer research.

In so far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, advice has been received that the amount spent by the Commonwealth upon cancer research in Australia in the last three calendar years is-

1975 $288,570 1976 $356,310 1977 $369,378. Benefit for this research would of course

flow to Victoria. In addition to this direct support to cancer research the Commonwealth also provides support to the WaIter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research whose main field of research, immunology, is of direct relevance to cancer research. Commonwealth support for the institute in the last three calendar years is-

1975 $649,164 1976 $921,000 1977 $1,060,000. The State Government grant to the Cancer

Institute included the following amounts for cancer research during the past three financial years-

1973-74 1974-75 1975-76

$346,265 $543,806 $702,985.

The Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria funds a number of projects concerning cancer research and recorded expenditure during 1975-76 as some $400,000 for this purpose of which $25,000 was a grant to the research programme from the Government of Victoria.

Cancer research is also undertaken at various universities and institutions within Victoria-the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the Howard Florey Institute of Experimental Physiology and Medicine, the Baker Medical Research Institute and a number of public hospitals. Information is not available as to the proportion of State Government assistance to these institutions which can be regarded as being allocated for cancer research.

WASTE DISPOSAL. (Question No. 2095)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Premier-

What Government departments and bodies are responsible for cOntrolling waste disposal, indicating their areas of responsibility?


Over-all responsibility for the control of discharge of wastes to the environment is

vested in the Environment Protection Authority under the terms of the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Act provides for the following areas of responsibility to be undertaken-

1. A licenSing system designed to control and manage the discharge of wastes to air, land and water.

2. Control of noise and litter. 3. Prevention of pollution. 4. Declaration of State environment pro

tection policies for segments of the environment.

5. Delegation to other Government agencies to carry out certain functions set out in the Act.

The following agencies assist in the administration of the Act as delegated protection agencies of the Environment Protection Authority-

(a) Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works-Discharge to water in the metropolitan area.

(b) Commission of Public Health-Discharges to land.

(c) Dandenong Valley Authority-Discharges to water in the Dandenong Valley catchment.

(d) Latrobe Valley Water and Sewerage Board-Discharge to air, land and water in the Latrobe Valley and East Gippsland.

(e) State Rivers and Water Supply Commission-Discharges to water in all other areas of the State.

TRADE TEACHERS. (Question No. 2100)


1. How many trade training teachers have commenced duty with the Education Department in each of the past three years?

2. Whether there are any current shortages of trade teachers in the technical school division; if so, in which trades?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 1st September, 1977, as follows-

1. 1974 350 1975 342 1976 323 1977 270 (approximately)

2. Yes; there are shortagesbuilding trades; cabinet makers; wood machinists; upholsters; roof slaters-tilers; automotive trades; plumbing/sheetmetal; horticulture trades.


I desire to add that the Technical Schools Division advertised for trade training teachers in July and interviews will be conducted shortly. If sufficient applications are not received the division will re-advertise later in September to recruit more trainees in the shortage areas.

MELBOURNE UNDERGROUND RAIL LOOP PROJECT ..

(Question No. 2101)

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

1. What is the total loss of working time on the underground rail loop project attributable. to industrial stoppages to date, expressed In man-hours and man-days respectively? '

2. How much of the lost time was due t<?-:-( a) disputes concerning hours and conditions of work or wages; (b) demarcation disputes; and (c) stoppages attributable to other causes?

3. What is the estimated cost of the loss of time attributable to industrial stoppages?


1. 46,000 man-days 368,000 man-hours.

2. (a) About 90 per cent. (b) About 8 per cent. ( c) About 2 per cent.

3. The Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority does not take out estimates relating to the loss of time attributable to industrial stoppages.

INQUIRY INTO DEBT COLLECTING.

(Question No. 2109)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Attorney-General-

Whether an inquiry has been held, or is proposed, to examine debt-collecting activities in Victoria; if so, with what result; jf not, why?

Mr. l\1ACLELLAN (Minister of Labour and Industry): The answer supplied by the Attorney-General is-

I am not aware that any investigation has been made into debt-collecting activities generally in Victoria.

Debt-collecting agencies are required to be registered under the Private Agents Act 1966 which is administered by the Chief Secretary and it appears appropriate for the question to be directed to the Chief Secretary.

I am concerned as Attorney-General about some problems in relation to invasion of privacy and the use of credit history information by debt collection agencies and this aspect is under consideration.

FLUORIDATED WATER. (Question No. 2120)


1. What provisions have been made for people who could be affected through the consumption of fluoridated water?

2. What equipment has been provided at hospital level for people being treated for kidney complaints who could be affected by fluoridated water, indicating which hospitals are involved and how many patients are receiving this special treatment?

3. What method of research was carried out by the Department of Health, as requested by the World Health Organization, to ascertain an optimum level of fluoride, indicating when this research was undertaken and by whom?


1. Expert advisers to the Department of Health consider that consumption of fluoridated water adjusted to the concentration recommended by the Commission of Public Health is not associated with any ill effect.

2. All forms of dialysis involve some form of filtration to remove impurities but none of these attachments provided at the present time will remove fluoride or other chemical compounds from the water.

The blood dialysis machines used in hospitals use two filters to merely remove coarse precipitated materials.

Peritoneal dialysis when performed does use the process of reverse osmosis where a semi-permeable fine mesh ensures that fluids are bacteria-free.

For home dialysis units, particularly in rural areas where the purity of water is in doubt and there may be gross precipitated materials, a more refined water purification is utilized using deionisers.

3. The optimum level of fluoride of one part per million as fixed by the Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 was made on the recommendation of the Commission of Public Health. This figure was determined by the commission after consideration of all available international literature, taking into account the differing climates.

SCHOOLS IN GLENROY ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 2130)

Mr. CULPIN (Glenroy) asked the Minister of Education-

In respect of each school in the electoral district of Glenroy-

1. What is the present teacher staff ceiling and actual teacher staff?


2. What is the total number of students? Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of

Education): The answer is-I advised the honorable member by letter

dated the 2nd September, 1977, that the position as at the 1st September is as follows-

Primary schools

4732 Broadmeadows East •. 4833 Campmeadows 3118 Glenroy .. 4782 Glenroy North 4809 Glenroy West 4806 Gowrie Park " 4878 Hadfield 4721 Oak Park ,n58 Westbrccn

Enrol- Enti tle- Actual ment ment star

325 15 17 406 16 17 326 14 17 485 19 19·2 478 18 21 696 29 5 32·5 485 19 22·1 512 21 24 402 16 21

·This includes principals, vice principals, librarians, artcraft teachers, migrant teachers and so on.

High Schools Enrol- Base Actual ment staff

Glenroy .. 885 54·3 56'9 Hadfield 887 54'4 5,5'1 Oak Park:: 897 ,56'9 60·4

Technical school Enrol- Target Actual ment staff

Glenroy-Full-time day .. 9941 Full-time T AFE

28 J 86 92 Part-time day .. 87 Part-time evening 384

OAK PARK AMBULANCE SERVICE. (Question No. 2133)

Mr. CULPIN (Glenroy) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

How many calls the ambulance service situated in Strahan Street, Oak Park, has made each month since its establishment?


The Oak Park branch station has been in existence since 1968. The figures requested are not readily available and it would involve a detailed search through old records to provide them.

The following figures for the period JulyDecember, 1976, have oniy recently become available as Ambulance Service-Melbourne is in the process of placing records on computer and it will take some time before more current figures will .be avaHable-

July 1976 Total cases 1,141 August 1976 Total cases 1,510 September 1976 Total cases 1,385 October 1976 Total cases 1,665 November 1976 Total cases 1,588 December 1976 Total cases 1,488

When figures for the January-July, 1977, period are known, I will make them available to the honorable member.

A small percentage of the above cases will be transports to the Essendon and District Memorial Hospital and also returns from metropolitan hospitals to private residences.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT BLACKBURN INTERSECTIONS. (Question No. 2135)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. Whether 176 traffic control lights are scheduled for installation before traffic control lights will be installed at the intersections of Williams Road and Station Street with Whitehorse Road, Blackburn?

2. On what date it is expected that the installation of traffic control lights at the above-mentioned intersections will be commenced and completed, respectively?

3. What is the estimated cost of the installation of traffic control lights at the intersections?

4. Whether funds have been allocated for the installation of traffic control lights at the intersections; if so, how much has been allocated; if not, when it is expected that such allocation will be made?

5. Whether any formal applications, requests or submissions have been made to the Country Roads Board and the Road Safety and Traffic Authority, respectively, for the installation of traffic control lights at the intersections; if so, on what date or dates and by whom?


1. Yes. The intersection of Williams Road-Station Street with Whitehorse Road, Blackburn, was listed as priority number 177 in the State-wide list of sites proposed for signalization under the State intersection control programme, which was issued by the Road Safety and Traffic Authority in October, 1976.

2. It is expected that the installation of the signals at the intersection will be completed during 1978. Precise information as to the timing of the installation will not be available until the works programme for that peIiod is prepared.

3. Detailed estimates of cost will not be prepared until the proposal is programmed for installation under a works programme.

4. The allocation of funds for the installation of traffic signals at this location wiU be made when the proposal is accepted in a works programme.


5. The Road Safety and Traffic Authority received a request for the installation of signals at this intersection from the Council of the City of Nunawading on 13th May, 1968. The authority considered that the installation of signals was not justified at that time.

The council made a further request for installation under the State intersection control programme on 23rd July, 1975.

Information with respect to matters relating to the Country Roads Board is not available to me.

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AT BLACKBURN INTERSECTIONS.

(Question No. 2136)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of SpeCial Education, for the Chief Secretary-

In respect of the intersections of Williams Road and Station Street with Whitehorse Road, Blackbum-

1. How many traffic accidents involving pedestrians, motor cars, motor trucks, motor cycles, and bicycles, respectively. have taken place at each of those intersections in each year since 1960. and in this year to date?

2. How many persons have been killed and injured, respectively, as a result of traffic accidents which have taken place at each of those intersections in each year?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of SpeCial Education): The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

1. Details of traffic accidents reported at the intersection of Williams Road and Station Street with Whitehorse Road, Blackbum, are set out in the following table-

Number and severity of accidents Number of vehicles and pedestrians involved in reported accidents

Number of casualties in reported accidents

Year

1968 .. 1969 .. 1970 .. 1971 .. 1972 .. 1973 .. 1974 .. 1975 .. 1976 ..

Fatal InJ'ury Property Total damage

7 3 2

2

4

4 2

1

3

TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

(Question No. 2137)

11 S

S 2 2 4 2

s

Cars

17 9 9 3 2 7

" 6

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of SpeCial Education, for the Chief Secretary-

What criteria are taken into account in determining-( a) whether traffic control lights should be constructed at an intersection; and (b) the priority which should be given to the construction of traffic lights at any particular intersection?


(a) The criteria for determining whether traffic signals are an appropriate form of control at an intersection, are the accident history; traffic flows, the amount of pedestrian activity; the proximity of neighbouring signals; the need for access to or egress

Trucks and

buses

Motor cycles

1

Bicycles

Pedestrians

2

Killed Injured Total

7 S

2

2 I 6

7 S 1

1 2 1 6

from adjoining development; and the need for roadworks.

(b) 'The priority number allocated for a particular intersection proposed for signalization under the State intersection control programme is based on accident history over the previous three years and traffic flow.

SCHOOL SWIMMING POOL SUBSIDY.

(Question No. 2142)


1. What is the current Education Department subsidy for the construction of a school swimming pool?

2. When this level of subsidy was first set?

3. Whether he has received a recommendation from within the department to


lift the subsidy; if so, what is the recommendation, and when a decision will be made?

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON TERTIARY EDUCATION.

(Question No. 2143) Mr. THOMPSON (Minister

Education): The answer is-of Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray)

asked the Minister of Education-I advised the honorable member by letter

dated the 20th May, 1977, as follows-1. On what dates the Minister's Advisory

Council on Tertiary Education met in 1974, 1975, 1976, and in this year to date?

1. $4,600 on a $1 for $1 basis for primary schools.

2. Who was present at each meeting? 3. Whether he will make available to

honorable members on request, copies of the minutes of the meetings of the council as was done for earlier years?

$10,000 on a $1 for $1 basis for secondary schools.

2. 1960.

3. A recommendation has been made to increase the subsidy to $35,000 on a $1 for $1 basis, and a decision will be made shortly.



1 and 2.

Council meetings held in 1974

22nd February

26th April

28th June

26th July

30th August

25th October

13th December


21 st February

11th April

27th June

Members present

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson (Chairman), Professor A. S. Buchanan (DeputyChairman), Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. P. G. Law, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDoneIl, Dr. D. M. Myers and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. P. G. Law, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Dr. L. Shears and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Mr. V. R. C. Brown. Professor D. P. Derham, Dr. P. G. Law, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. M. K. Selway (for Mr. D. M. McDonelI), Dr. L. Shears and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Dr. P. G. Law, Father F. M. Martin, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Professor E. K. Braybrooke (for Dr. D. M. Myers) and Rev. T. H. Timpson, Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Professor A. S. Buchanan (in the chair), Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. R. Parry (for Dr. P. G. Law), Professor W. A. G. Scott (for Dr. J. A. L. Matheson) and Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner, (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. P. G. Law, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Mr. V. R. C. Brown, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. P. G. Law, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Members present

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Dr. L. Shears, Professor J. M. Swan (for Dr. J. A. L. Matheson), Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. P. G. Law. Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Dr. D. M. Myers, Dr. L. Shears, Mr. M. K. Selway (for Mr. D. M. McDonell). Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. Brian Dixon (Assistant Minister of Education) in the chair for part of the meeting. Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Mr. V. Faulkner. Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Dr. L. Shears, Professor W. A. G. Scott (for Dr. J. A. L. Matheson), Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.



29th August

24th October

5th December


20th February

27th February

23rd April

25th June

3rd September

17th December

15th April, 1977

Members present

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Mr. D. M. McDoneIl, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. R. E. Parry (for Dr. P. G. Law) and Dr. L. Shears.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Dr. L. Shears, Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Mr. V. Faulkner (for Father F. M. Martin), Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. J. A. L. Matheson, Dr. D. M. Myers, Mr. R. E. Parry (for Dr. P. G. Law), Dr. L. Shears, Mr. P. N. Thwaites and Rev. T. H. Timpson.

Members present

Professor A. S. Buchanan (in the chair), Professor D. E. Caro (for Professor D. P. Derham), Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. F. R. Jevons, Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Father F. M. Martin, Dr. D. M. Myers, Professor W. A. G. Seott and Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. MeDonell, Father F. M. Martin, Dr. D. M. Myers, Professor W. A. G. Scott, Dr. L. Shears and Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. P. G. Law, Mr. D. M. McDonell, Dr. D. M. Myers, Professor W. A. G. Scott, Dr. L. Shears and Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. F. R. Jevons, Dr. P. G. Law, Father F. M. Martin, Dr. D. M. Myers, Professor W. A. G. Scott, Mr. M. Selway (for Mr. D. M. McDonel1), Dr. L. Shears and Mr. P. N. Thwaites.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. P. G. Law, Father F. M. Martin, Mr. D. M. McDoneU, Dr. D. M. Myers, Professor W. A. G. Scott, Dr. L. Shears and Dr. F. R. Jevons.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buehanan, Mr. R. Barnett (for Dr. P. G. Law), Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Dr. T. Moore (for Dr. L. Shears), Professor W. A. G. Seott and Dr. F. R. Jevons.

Mr. L. H. S. Thompson, Professor A. S. Buchanan, Professor E. K. Braybrooke, Professor D. P. Derham, Mr. A. D. P. Dyer, Mr. J. M. Hill, Professor R. 1... Martin, Dr. F. R. Jevons and Dr. L. Shears.

3. Minutes of the council meetings have not been made available in the past but an annual report on the work of the council has been prepared and published.

Whether he will examine and rectify the severe staff shortage at Ringwood High School, in respect of replacements for-(a) a maths/science teacher; (b) a Form VI. biology teacher; and (c) art! craft teachers? A report has not been prepared for 1976,

since during the course of the year, the Post-Secondary Education Committee of Inquiry was established and the terms of reference of this committee included many of the functions formerly associated with the AdviSOry Council. Since establishment of the inquiry the AdviSOry Council has met less frequently and has dealt with a diminished range of business. A brief account of this work could be provided if necessary.

RINGWOOD HIGH SCHOOL. (Question No. 2149)

Mr. McARTHUR (Ringwood) asked the Minister of Education-


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 20th May, 1977, that three additional teachers have been appointed to Ringwood High School, all effective 23rd May, 1977. These appointments are as replacements for one teacher who resigned on 21st April, 1977, one who will resign as from 23rd May, 1977, and one who will commence a period of confinement leave on 23rd May, 1977.


NON-RATEABLE CROWN LAND. (Question No. 2158)

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the Premier-

Whether the Victoria Grants Commission, in forming its assessments for the current year, took into consideration the areas of non-rateable Crown land in each municipality; if so, with what result?


Yes. Under the "As of right entitlement" an

area component was paid irrespective of ownership of the land. Under the "needs" component, payments could be made if the municipality provided services for the nonrateable Crown land.

"EO. CREDIT" DEDUCTIONS FROM TEACHERS' SALARIES.

(Question No. 2159)


What is the present position of Victorian Secondary Teachers Association members applying to the Education Department to have payments to "Ed. Credit" deducted from their salary?



"The Education Department is currently involved in the detailed planning and programming of a new computerized pay-roll system proposed for introduction during the second quarter of 1978. The department's existing computerized system is presently fully committed and any further adaptations or extensions of it are impracticable pending introduction of the new system. I have informed Education Credit Union Cooperative Ltd. that upon the introduction of the planned system in the new year I will be prepared to consider having the department handle credit union deductions from the salaries of teachers who are members of the Victorian Secondary Teachers' Association. "

GRADUATES IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION.

(Question No. 2160)


Further to question No. 1709 answered on 30th March, 1977, whether any of the 52 students who graduated with a threeyear Physical Education degree in 1976 failed to obtain admission to a Diploma of Education course in 1977?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 29th June, 1977, that no exit student graduating from a State College of Advanced Education with a three-year physical education degree was denied a place in Diploma of Education at the State College of Victoria at Hawthorn. Physical education methods were not available at other teacher-training institutions offering Diploma of Education.

OTWAY RANGES. (Question No. 2163)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Forests-

1. When the last systematic survey was carried out for the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi in the Otway Ranges?

2. What sites were tested? 3. Where Phytophthora cinnamomi has

been located in the ranges? 4. Whether Phytophthora cinnamomi has

been located in mountain ash forests of the ranges; if so, where, and what are the implications?

5. Whether any other tests for fungal pathogens have been carried out in the ranges; if so, when these tests were undertaken, what pathogens have been found, and where?

6. How many sawmills are dependent on the hardwood resources of the ranges, indicating in respect of each-(a) the location; (b) the number of persons employed; (c) the size of present log allocation; (d) the forest district from which the allocation is obtained; (e) the minimum size of the allocation that is considered economic; and (f) the expected life-time?

7. What volume of regrowth timber from the 1939 fires has been cut in the ranges?

Mr. I. W. SMITH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer supply by Minister of Forests is-

1. Surveys of various types are part of an on -going research programme in forests throughout the State.

2. Various sites have been examined. 3. While an on-going programme is pro

ceeding it is not possible to give a meaningful answer to this question.

4. Although research is still proceeding it can be said that forests on well drained, fertile mountain soils are not prone to serious injury from Phytophthora cinnamomi.

5. Tests for fungal pathogens in State forests including the Otway Ranges are in progress.


6. Eleven sawmills depend upon saw log supplies obtained from State forests-

(a) Sawmills are located at Geelong, Benwerrin Barwon Downs (2), Deans Marsh, Birregurra, Forrest, Colac, Elliminyt, Baroongarook and Apollo Bay.

(b) Not known. (c) Present log allocations are-

300 mS, 668 ms, 4177 mS, 6137 mS, 4177 ms, 450 ms, 7228 mS, 13886 ms, 5118 ms, 675 ms, and 7371 m3.

(d) Sawmills situated at Geelong, Benwerrin, Barwon Downs (2), Birregurra, Forrest and Deans Marsh obtain logs from the Eastern Otways forest district. Sawmills situated at Colac, Elliminyt, Birregurra, Baroongarook and Apollo Bay obtain logs from Gellibrand forest district.

(e) The minimum economic size of log allocation varies between sawmillers in relation to capital structure, type and age of milling equipment and the degree of owner participation.

(I) The expected economic life-time of a sawmill is a function of existing capital stock, maintenance practices and technological obsolescence. The Forests Commission does not have complete information relating to these matters for the sawmills in the Eastern Otways and Gellibrand forest districts.

7. No regrowth timber from the 1939 fires has been cut for supply to industry.

Act

8563

8563

6046

6585 7924

8121

8748

4451

6796

7473

Date

1974

1974

1956

1959

1969 1971

1975

1936

1961

1966

Company

Australian Paper Manufacturers


Masonite .. Commonwealth Sugar Refineries

A. V. Wehl

Bowater-Scott

Softwood-Holdings




3. (i) Maps of each of the respective supply zones are available for inspection at the head office of the Forests Commission.

PULPWOOD SUPPLY ZONES. (Question No. 2165)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Forests-

1. What is the area of-(a) land; and (b) State forest, in respect of each concession zone provided under Act Nos. 8563, 6046, 6585, 7924, 8121 and 8748, respectively?

2. What was the area of-(a) land; and (b) State iorest, in respect of each concession zone provided under Act Nos. 4451, 6796 and 7473, respectively?

3. Whether maps of the concession zones for each of the above-mentioned Acts are available; if so, from what source?

Mr. I. W. SMITH (Minister of Agriculture) : The answer supplied by the Minister of Forests is-

1 and 2. There are no concession zones provided for under the Acts listed. However, each Act incorporates an agreement between the company and the Forests Commission which specifies a supply zone from which the company which is party to the agreement has the right to obtain pulpwood of quantity and type and under the conditions specified in the agreement. Approximate areas involved under the various Acts are as follows-

Type of pulpwood

Hardwood

Softwood

Hardwood

Hardwood

Softwood

Softwood

Softwood

Hardwood

Hardwood

Hardwood

Area ('000 hectares) State

Total land forest

2,007 1,007 1,329 370

312 245 321 81

1,236 166 633 365 562 118 365 242

2,025 983 1,990 1,007

(ii) Maps pertaining to Act Nos. 7924 and 8748 have been lodged in the Central Plan Office as specified in the respective Act.

9210 Questions [ASSEMBL Y.] on Notice.

ALBURY-VVODONGA REGIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT (Question No. 2168)

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

Whether he has given consideration to the position of the Albury-Wodonga Regional Council for Social Development with the Australian Assistance Plan being continued on a State basis by the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria; if so, with what results?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Social Welfare) : The answer is-

I have recently received a letter from the Director of the Albury-Wodonga Regional Council for Social Development requesting that that council be given consideration in the allocation of resorces under the proposed Victorian Family and Community Services Programme. That request is being examined within the over-all context of providing assistance to the entire Upper Murray region, but at this stage planning is still in the preliminary stages and I am unable to indicate the extent of assistance that might be provided.

VVINDSOR PRIMARY SCHOOL. (Question No. 2170)


With regard to the Windsor Primary School-

1. What is the student enrolment? 2. What is the area of the school grounds? 3. What is the age of the permanent

school buildings? 4. How many temporary buildings are at

the school and how long each building has been so located?

5. When it is expected that a new art/ craft facility will be constructed?



1. Five hundred and forty-four enrolled. 2. Three acres 0 roods 13· 8 perches. 3. Light timber construction--eleven class

rooms-1966-71. Multi-storey brickeleven classrooms (built in stages 1877-96 and 1915).

4. Two portables, one for use as a standard class-room supplied on 12th March, 1973, and one for migrant classes supplied in Sepetmber, 1976.

5. It is intended that an art/craft facility will be considered for inclusion with the staff accommodation improvements pro-

posed for this school. At this stage it is not expected that these works will be carried out during the 1977-78 financial year.

RED HILL CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL.

(Question No. 2172)


What steps are to be taken to improve the inadequate bus service available to students at Red Hill Consolidated School?



U I desire to say that school bus contractors in the area are being requested to submit quotes for a temporary bus service to commence as early as practicable in the second term."

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT STORES BRANCH.

(Question No. 2173)


What changes are proposed to the operation of the stores branch of the Education Department?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 2nd September, 1977, as follows-

.. I desire to say that no changes at this time are proposed to the operation of the stores branch of the Education Department.

However, a committee has been established to examine the possibility of providing schools with grant funds to enable decisions to be made locally, as to whether purchases will be from the store or elsewhere."

BInTH CONTROL PROGRAMME. (Question No. 2174)


In respect of the Department of Health birth control programme-

1. Which municipalities now operate clinics, indicating-(a) for how many sessions; and (b) what grant each clinic receives?

2. Whether the department has received at any time a request from the City of Warrnambool regarding the setting up of a clinic; if so, when, and with what result?


3. Whether the department will communicate with the City of Warrnambool, drawing its attention to State Government programmes in this field and offering assistance in the provision of such a service?


1. The following family planning clinics are now operating-

Municipalities

(a) MetropolitanAltona .. Broadmeadows Brunswick Camberwell Chelsea .. Coburg " ColIingwood Dandenong Diamond Valley .. Essendon Fitzroy .. Frankston Hawthorn HeideJberg Keilor .. Knox Malvern .. Melbourne Moorabbin Mordialloc Northcote Nunawading Oakleigh .. Port Melbourne Prahran .. Preston .. Sandringham Sherbrooke South Melbourne .. Springvale Sunshine .. Waverley

(b) CountryCorio Hastings ..

Number of sessions

2 sessions 1 session 2 sessions 2 sessions 2 sessions 2 sessions 1 session 4 sessions 2 sessions 1 session 2 sessions 2 sessions 1 session 1 session 2 sessions 5 sessions 1 session 3 sessions 1 session 1 session

., 2 sessions 1 session 1 session 1 session 2 sessions 2 sessions 1 session 1 session 1 session 2 sessions 1 session 3 sessions

1 session 1 session

Each session is of three hours' duration.

There is no grant in respect of these clinics as they are operated by staff employed by the Department of Health.

2. No.

3. Yes.

BACCHUS MARSH PRIMARY SCHOOL.

(Question No. 2175)


With regard to the Bacchus Marsh Primary School-

1. Whether the school buildings have been condemned; if so, why?

2. What was the date of any report proposing condemnation and on what date this action was approved?

3. Whether the school buildings are to be replaced; if so, when rebuilding will commence and when it is expected to be finished?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 20th May, 1977, as foUows-

1 and 2. The buildings at this school have not been condemned by this department or by the Public Works Department.

3. It has not yet been determined whether any of the existing school buildings will be replaced. However, the situation at this school has been reviewed by the Ballarat Regional Priorities Review Committee and it is expected that the school will be upgraded in 1980.

REGISTERED DENTISTS. (Question No. 2176)


In respect of dentists registered for the first time in 1975 and 1976, and in this year to date, how many were not residents of Australia at the time of-Ca) application; and (b) registration, specifying the country of residence and qualification in each case?


Applicants for registration as dentists in Victoria are required to make personal application at the office of the Dental Board. The table hereunder lists dentists from overseas who made applications in 1975, 1976 and in this year to date and were subsequently granted registration-


Number of Country of residence applicants at time of application Year Dental qualification

Year endina 30th September, 1975 .. B.D.S. Singapore .. 15 Malaysia .. 4 Singapore 9 Hong Kong 2

B.D.S. Witwatersrand South Africa

Year ending 30th September, 1976 .. B.D.S. Singapore .. 44 Malaysia .. 20 21 Singapore .. ..

Hong Kong 1 United Kingdom 1

B.D.S. Witwatersrand 2 South Africa 2

D.D.S. McGill University ..

D.M.D. Oregon

Malaysia .. United States of America ..

35 Hong Kong 1 15

From 1st October, 1976, to 3rd May 1977 B.D.S. Singapore .. Singapore .. .. Malaysia .. .. 19

B.D.S. Witwatersrand South Africa

SOUTHERN PENINSULA HOSPITAL.

(Question No. 2177)


In respect of the Southern Peninsula Hospital-

1. What funds have been allocated in each of the past five years for building works, indicating-(a) the works to be undertaken; (b) their date of completion; and (c) whether any money was unspent and, if so, how the unspent money was dealt with?

2. What offers now exist for construction of hospital extensions and when it is expected funds will be made available for this purpose?


1. Funds have been allocated for the following building works at the Southern Peninsula Hospital during the past five years in respect of the following building works-

1972-73 Nil. 1973-74 Nil. 1974-75 (a) Manager's residence

(b) (c)

1975-76 (a)

(b)

$15,000. December, 1974. All paid to hospital. Sewerage installation

$31,051. $15,638 was paid to hospital

in 1975-76-$8,581 in 1976-77.

(c) A saving of $6,832 was reallocated for miscellaneous works.

1976-77 (a) Ward block casualty and kitchen-preliminary fees.

(b) Progress payments of $15,638 were made in 1975-76 and $8,581 in 1976-77.

2. Working drawings and specifications have been approved for casualty, kitchen, dining, services, stores and a 30-bed nursing home ward.

Availability of funds will depend on the amount allocated to the Hospitals and Charities Commission for capital purposes for 1977-78.

REMEDIAL TEACHERS IN RIPON ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 2178)

Mr. AUSTIN (Ripon) asked the Minister of Special Education-

How many remedial teachers are attached to schools in the electoral district of Ripon, stating which schools?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education): The answer is-

The Minister of Education has advised .the honorable member by letter dated the 8th August, 1977 as follows-

"I desire to say that there is no official entitlement to a certain number of remedial teachers by any high school. All teachers experience problems of individual differences among pupils in their classes and in this sense all teachers are professional remedial teachers. The majority of high schools in Victoria are staffed generously over the


• base' and where remedial problems are beyond the range of the class-room teacher, smaller withdrawal groups should be organized by the principal of the school with the staff at his disposal.

Staff returns from schools in the electoral district of Ripon indicate that the following high schools use teachers for purely remedial work for the time fractions as indicated-

Beaufort High School-O· 5 equivalent full-time.

Lake Bolac High School-I' 5 equivalent full-time.

St. Arnaud High School-I' 5 equivalent full-time.

Stawell High School-O'8 equivalent fulltime.

No remedial teachers have been appointed to .the three technical schools in the electorate but some teachers may undertake remedial teaching duties as part of the overall duties at these technical schools."

SEAFORD PETROLEUM PTY. LTD. (Question No. 2183)

Mr. CArnIE (Carrum) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-

Further to the answer to question No. 2098 given on 26th April, 1977, when permits were issued to Seaford Petroleum by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, indicating-(a) what conditions of a light industrial zone refer to injury and loss of amenity to surrounding residents; (b) what conditions in clause 25 (2) of the ordinance refer to injury and loss of amenity to surrounding residents; and (c) what specific conditions were imposed on petrol-selling facilities in each permit?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation): The answer supplied by the Minister of Water Supply is

(a) Clause 2 (1) in the ordinance to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme defines .. light industry" as follows-

cc Light industry" means any industry whether or not particularly described or defined in this ordinance -

(a) in which the building or works thereby occupied or employed, the processes carried on, the material used or stored, machinery employed, and the transportation of materials goods and commodities to and from the premises will not cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the appearance of such building, works or materials or by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, wastepaper, waste products, grit, oil, or of the presence of vermin or otherwise; and

(b) the establishment of which will not or the conduct of which does not impose an undue load on any existing or projected service for the supply or provision of water, gas, electricity, sewerage facilities, or any other like service.

In the table to clause 7 in the ordinance to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (Reprint No. 5) section 13, column 3 uses, other than cc light industry", are subject to the following conditions-

(a) the conditions applicable to light industry are observed; and

(b)

(b) (d)

(e)

(f)

the processes carried on, the materials, goods and machinery used and stored and the transportation of materials, goods and commodities to and from the premises will not cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste products, grit or oil, the appearance of the property or otherwise.

Clause 25 (2)-vehicles filling storage tanks shall

stand wholly within the curtilage while so doing and the layout of the buildings and works shall be so located that a vehicle measuring 13'8 metres by 2'5 metres can enter and leave the site moving in a forward direction;

no vehicle shall be serviced unless it is wholly within the curtilage;

where the site has a common boun-dary or common boundaries with land within a residential zone provision shall be made along the common boundary or boundaries and within the site for a planting strip 3 metres wide and such strip shall be planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(g) the buildings and works constructed and activities carried out on the site shall not cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the appearance of such buildings and works or any materials on the site or by reason of emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, dust, waste products, oil or otherwise; and

(h) an oil and silt interceptor trap shall be installed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and shall be so located as to receive all the drainage from paved areas on the site including any car wash areas.

(c) As a petrol filling station is a permitted use in a Light Industrial Zone any conditions included in earlier permits are


now of no consequence as the use is permitted as of right subject to the provisions of the ordinance. However, the conditions of each permit were-

(i) Permit Serial No. 46899 issued 17th July, 1967, for the purposes-and subject to the conditions set out hereunder-

Subject to the conditions (if any) set out hereunder permission is hereby granted for the land situate at and described as lot 8, plan of subdivision No. 75196, on the west side of Bardia Avenue, City of Frankston, to be used for the purpose of a transport depot and storage of domestic heating oils.

Conditions. 1. The use shall comply with the provi

sions of light industry as defined in the order.

2. The loading and unloading of vehicles and delivery of goods to and from the store or other place where goods are or are to be kept shall at all times be effected within the curtilage.

3. No vehicle under the control of the operator under this permit or his staff shall be parked in the streets nearby.

4. The total quantity of heating oil stored shall not at anyone time exceed 10,000 gallons and not more than 5,000 gallons of such oil shall be stored other than in underground tanks. (ii) Permit serial No. 49088 issued 30th

January, 1968, for the purposes and subject to the conditions set out hereunder-

Subject to the conditions (if any) set out hereunder permission is hereby granted for the land situate at and described as lot 9, lodged plan No. 75196, Bardia Avenue, City of Frankston, to be used fOT the purpose of parking trucks thereon and installing three underground tanks with pump bowsers to service same.

Conditions. 1. The pump bowsers shall be so located

that they will not attract passing traffic to seek retail sales.

2. No vehicle under the control of the operator under this permit or his staff shall be parked in the streets nearby.

3. The loading and unloading of vehicles and delivery of goods to and from the store or other place where goods are or are to be kept shall at all times be effected within the curtilage. On approval of the Melbourne Metro

politan Planning Scheme, on the 22nd May, 1968, the Planning Scheme Ordinance was modified in that a petrol filling station was changed from being a discretionary use to a permitted use subject to a controlling clause. 25 (2) (copy attached). Subject to that clause no permit is required pursuant to the planning scheme for retail sales of petrol.

(iii) Permit serial No. 50899 for the erection of buildings and works and use of the land for a heating display centre issued on 21st May, 1968, as set out hereunder-

Subject to the conditions (if any) set out hereunder permission is hereby granted for the land situate at and described as lots 8 and 9, lodged plan No. 75196, west side of Bardia Avenue, City of Frankston, to have buildings and works erected thereon in accordance with the attached endorsed plan and to be used for a heating display centre.

Conditions. 1. The layout of the site and the size of

the proposed buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any statute, statutory rule or by-law or for any other reason) without the consent of the responsible authority.

2. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and so delineated on the endorsed plan shall be made available for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose.

3. The loading and unloading of vehicles and delivery of goods to and from the store or other place where goods are or are to be kept shall at all times be effected within the curtilage.

4. The conditions of permits Nos. 49088 and 46899 shall be complied with. Under these permits the land can be used

for the purposes set out subject, inter alia, to no retail sales of petrol. However due to the modification referred to and compliance with clause 25 (2) of the ordinance the operator as of right may now sell petrol. There is no provision expressly stating that such sales shall be retail or wholesale.

PROPOSED HUME FREEWAY. (Question No. 2184)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Transport-

1. Further to the answer to question No. 1632 given on 19th April, 1977, what funds have been or will be made available this financial year from the Commonwealth for the Hume Freeway sections from-la) Craigieburn to Bell Stree\:; and (b) Bell Street to the city, indicating for what purposes those funds are to be used?

2. In respect of those two sections of the freeway what proposals for future years have been made to the Commonwealth?

IHr. RAFFERTY (l\1inister of Transport): The answer is-

1. Funds made available in financial year 1976-77 by the Country Roads Board from


both Commonwealth and State sources for the Hume Freeway between Craigieburn and Clifton Hill are as follows-

(a) Craigieburn to Bell Street-$

Land acquisition . . 1,645,000 Investigation and engin-

eering survey 10,000 (b) Bell Street to Clifton Hill-

Land acquisition .. Investigation and engin-

$ 760,000

eering survey 90,000 Right-of -way clearance 50,000

Notwithstanding the allocation of funds made earlier in the financial year, no investigations, engineering surveys or 'right-of-way clearance will be carried out this financial year.

2. The following will be included in the programmes to be submitted to the Commonwealth for financial year 1977-78-

$ (a) Craigieburn to Bell Street-

Land acquisition . . 1,500,000 Investigation and engin

eering survey (b) Bell Street to Clifton Hill-

175,000

Land acquisition 100,000 The allocation for land acquisition merely

makes allowance for any requests by land owners for compensation on the grounds of hardship that may arise during the 1977-78 financial year.

LEGAL ABORTIONS. (Question No. 2185)

Mr. BILLING (Springvale) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

What was the total number of pregnancies terminated for therapeutic reasons in Victorian public hospitals in each of the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and how many of such operations were performed at-(a} the Royal Women's Hospital; and (b) the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital?


The total number of pregnancies terminated for therapeutic reasons in Victorian hospitals is not available. However, pregnancies terminated for therapeutic reasons at the Royal Women's Hospital were as follows-

1974: 845 terminations 1975: 881 terminations 1976: 1,289 terminations

and at the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital as follows-

1975: 433 terminations 1976: 344 terminations.

OUTER RING TRANSPORTATION STUDY.

(Question No. 2186)

Mr. LACY .(Warrandyte) asked the Minister of Transport-

Further to question No. 206 answered on the 5th May, 1976, in respect of the outer ring transportation study-

1. Whether the study group has completed its investigations and its report; if not, why, and when it is expected that these tasks will be completed?

2. Whether the study group has encountered any problems of technical evaluation; if so, what are these problems and what steps have been taken to overcome them?

3. Whether he will ensure that the report is made within twelve months of the contract date of November, 1976?

4. Whether the Government's policy on freeways in outer suburban areas, as recorded in the Premier's policy speech on 1st March, 1976, and in his answer to a question without notice on 29th October, 1975, has been specifically brought to the attention of the study group and its contractors; if so, whether the study group and its contractors have been specifically requested to conduct their investigations and to prepare their report within this con.,. straint and, in that event-(a} what was the response to that request; (b) whether they have conducted their investigations within that constraint; and (c) whether they are preparing their report within that constraint?


1. No. The commencement of stage two of the study was delayed due to the review of stage one taking longer than expected. Work is now proceeding satisfactorily on stage two.

2. The evaluation required new techn~ques largely untried in Australia. These techniques were developed during part one of the study and applied during part two. Several minor problems using these new and unfamiliar techniques have been encountered and overcome during the normal course of the study.

3. Every effort will be made to complete the report by November this year.

4. The committee supervising the study is fully conversant with Government policy with respect to transport and all their investigations and deliberations are carried out in full awareness of this. The consultant's work is constantly reviewed to ensure that it fulfils these requirements.


COMMONWEALTH-STATE PRE-SCHOOL FUNDING.

(Question No. 2187)


Whether the Prime Minister wrote to him in November, 1976, concerning the form of Commonwealth-State consultative arrangements on pre-school funding; if so, whether he will provide the member for Brunswick with a copy of the letter, together with the response of the State Government?


(a) Yes. (b) Yes.

REPATRIATION HOSPITALS. (Question No. 2188)


1. Whether the Commonwealth Minister or the Department of Veterans' Affairs have established either formal or informal consultation arrangements with the health authorities of Victoria concerning repatriation hospitals; if so, when such arrangements were made and what requests were made by the Commonwealth?

2. What proposals have been made by the Hospitals and Charities Commission to the Department of Veterans' Affairs concerning the future of veterans' hospitals and health facilities in Victoria?


1. In the last year consultations have taken place between officers of the Commonwealth Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Hospitals and Charities Commission concerning repatriation hospitals in Victoria.

The main request made by the Commonwealth was the usa~e of their facilities for non-repatriation patIents.

2. The Hospitals and Charities Commission requested the Department of Veterans' Affairs to broaden the co-operation between the public and veterans' hospitals, with special reference to emergency admission services.

SCHOOL ASSEMBLY HALLS. (Question No. 2192)

Mr. BIRRELL (Geelong West) asked the Minister of Education-

1. What position Bell P:uk High School occupies on the Eclucation Department priority list for assembly halls?

2. What criteria are used in approving the construction of assembly halls or placing schools on a priority list?

3. What schools have received grants for assembly halls since a priority list, was published in Hansard in September, 1973?

4. What is the reason for schools lower on that list than Bell Park High School obtaining assembly halls since that date?

5. When the school can expect to receive funds for an assembly hall?



1. There are eighteen schools ahead of Bell Park High School on the priority list to receive grants for assembly halls.

2. The criterion for approved construction is that the building should be of a multipurpose nature (e.g. gymnasium, hall, theatre) . No criteria are placed on high schools or technical schools wishing to be placed on the priority waiting list.

3. The following schools have received assembly hall grants since publication of the priority list in Hansard in September, 1973-

Belmont Technical School. Macleod High School. Koonung High School. Broadford High School. Glenroy Technical School. Daylesford Technical School. Chadstone High School. Vermont High School. Terang High School. Corio Technical School. Morwell High School. Colac Technical School. Preston East Technical School. Watsonia Technical School. Cobram High School.

4. Because of the lack of other suitable facilities in the areas served by the Preston East and Watsonia technical schools and because of the school councils' proven willingness to locally raise and provide substantial funds for their other important school projects, departmental promises were made in 1972 to provide grants towards erection of these halls as soon as circumstances permit. The multi-purpose hall at Preston East was finally completed late in 1976 and at Watsonia just recently.

In the case of Koo-wee-rup High School, an error was made in the recording of the school's original date of application and a grant will be made available to this school this financial year.

5. It is not anticipated that a grant would be available to Bell Park High School before the 1979-80 financial year.


GRANTS TO ETHNIC ORGANIZATIONS.

(Question No. 2193)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-

What amount has been allocated this financial year for grants to ethnic organizations and welfare programmes, indicating to whom grants have been made and on what basis?

Mr. JONA (Minister of Immigra-tion and Ethnic Affairs): The answer is-

1. An allocation of $50.000 was available this financial year (1976-77).

2. Grants have been made to the following organizations-Prahran Multi-Cultural Community

Centre Port and South Melbourne Turkish

Committee Maltese Community Council of Vic

toria Boroondara Free Kindergarten Altona North Migrant Community

Centre Geelong Migrant Planning Com-

mittee Co.As.It Sunshine Polish Charity Association Yugoslav-Australian Workers' Cen-

tre The Council of Hungarian Associa-

tions of Victoria "Italian Week 1977 .. Lebanese Summer School Springvale Community Aid and

Advice Bureau Latvian Relief Society Cl Daugavas

Vanagi" Italian Committee of Co-ordination Slovenian Religious and Cultural

Centre Australian Federation of Islamic

Councils Western Region Education Centre Queen Victoria Hospital Chinese Fellowship of Victoria Captive Nations Council of Victoria Elderly Italians Club of Essendon Lithuanian Women's Welfare As-

sociation Victorian Arab Charity Organiza

tion Leader Group of Newspapers Good Neighbour Council-CC Ethnic

Communities and the Law It Seminar

Good Neighbour Council-CC Ethnic '77"

$ 11,000

5,274

5,000 3.500

3,000

2,788 2,000 2,000

1,750

1,500 1,500 1,345

1,000

1.000 1,000

1,000

1.000 640 603 500 500 400

350

300 200

150

100 3. Applications for grants are considered

for those projects which are designed to promote the objectives of the Ministry in the areas of community integration. migrant services and ethnic organizational development.

Session 1977.-319

Grants are not available for building projects, recurrent salaries, or for those purposes which already qualify for subsidy entitlement through other Commonwealth and State Government departments.

EMPLOYMENT AT CHURCmLL AND WONTHAGGI.

(Question No. 2194)

Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, for the Minister for State Development and Decentralization-

1. What support the Government has given to Exacto Knitwear Pty. Ltd. to enable that company to expand its operations at Churchill?

2. How many additional employees are expected to be engaged at Churchill as a result of this expansion?

3. Whether the Department of State Development has made any assessment of the likely effect of this expansion at Churchill on Exacto's operations at Wonthaggi; if so, what is the result of such assessment; jf not, whether an examination will be made to ascertain whether the Wonthaggi operations will be adversely affected by the company's expansion at Churchill?

4. What steps will be taken to encourage alternative employment at Wonthaggi to minimize the effects of reduced employment opportunities at the Wonthaggi plant?

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Minerals and Energy): The answer supplied by the Minister for State Development and Decentralization is-

1. The usual decentralization incentives have been provided.

2. 200. 3. No assessment has been made; com

pany policy will determine the future of the Wonthaggi factory.

4. The Department of State Development has a good record of introducing alternative employers when a decentralized industry has been forced to close or retrench staff, and will use its best endeavours if such becomes the case in this instance.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS.

(Questions No. 2195)


1. What are the details of the business associations of each of the State Electricity Commission commissioners?

2. In respect of the appointment of Mr. R. N. Millar as a deputy commissioner· of the commission-(a) in which companies he holds directorships; (b) whether any of


these companies have undertaken business with the commission; if so, what business transactions have taken place; and (c) whether his association with the General Electric Co. Ltd. has ceased completely?

Director, Electrolux Pty. Ltd. Chairman. Grosvenor International

(Aust.) Pty. Ltd. Deputy Chairman, Australian Eagle

Insurance Company Ltd. Director, H. C. Sleigh Ltd. Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for

Minerals and Energy): The answer is-

Director, Australia-New Guinea Corporation.

Chairman, L. M. Ericsson (Aust.) Pty.

1. Mr. B. J. Callinan- Ltd.

Managing Director, Gutteridge, Haskins Director, Longman Australia Pty. Ltd.

Mr. T. P. Scott-and Davey Pty. Ltd. Director, BP Australia Ltd. Director, Bland Payne Pty. Ltd.

Director, The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd.

Commissioner, Australian Atomic Director, Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. Energy Commission

Deputy Chairman, Lower Yarra Crossing Authority

Member, Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority.

Sir Roger Darvall-Director, Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

Mr. J. C. TrethowanNil.

2.

(0) Directorships

H .C. Sleigh Ltd. through subsidiary Golden Fleece Petroleum

John Perry Ltd.

Johns and Waygood Ltd.

Johnsway Galvanising Johns Phoenix .. Australian Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia

Ltd. E.M.I. (Aust.) Ltd. ..

(b) Business transactions

Mr. Millar has been a director of this company since 1976, but the commission has had contracts with the company for more than 25 years. Most contracts for automotive lubricants, distillate and petrol are shared between several companies-each share being dependent on price offered and location of suitable outlets.

Current shared contracts are as follows-Automotive lubricants-two-year contract, 1976-78 Distillate-two-year contract, 1976-78 Petrol-two-year contract, 1975-77

Again, Mr. Millar has been a director of this company since 1976, but the commission has had contracts with the company through its subsidiaries and, in particular, Johns and Waygood Ltd. for many years. Johns and Waygood Ltd. have undertaken extensive works in most Latrobe Valley and metropolitan power stations for the commission. All public tenders are awarded on the basis of the lowest acceptable offer received.

Current contracts are as follows-Lift maintenance contracts. Miscellaneous grid flooring and matting. Coal conveyor, Yallourn W Power Station. Cranes, Yalloum W Power Station. Hoists, Yallourn W Power Station. Maintenance air vessels-two-year contract, 1976-78. Pulverising equipment, Hazelwood Power Station. No direct business. No business.

Minor purchases of recording tapes.

TIMBER USED BY STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.

(Question No. 2197)

arms on State Electricity Commission poles -(a) what type of timber is used; (b) where it is milled; and (c) what quantity was ordered in each of the past two years?

Mr. CA11DE (Carrum) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

1. In respect of timber used for cross

2. Whether any imported timber is currently being used; if so-(a) in what quantity; (b) what type; and (c) from where it is imported?



1.

(a) (b) (c)

Types of timber Where milled Quantity ordered

two years to March,1977

rrf Messmate East Gippsland

l Silvertop White Stringybark Yellow Stringybark 5,649 Bluegum Mahogany

N~w South Wales Ironbark Turpentine 1,239 Blackbutt

W~stern"Aust;~lia Karri 890 Keruing Malaysia 140

2. Yes. (a) 140 m3 in two years to March, 1977. (b) Keruing. ( c ) Malaysia. This small quantity was ordered to test

this source of supply because of the possible difficulties in obtaining adequate quantities locally in the future.

SUBMISSION BY STAR VICTORIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE

RETARDED. (Question No. 2198)


In respect of the submission prepared by Star Victorian Association for the Retarded, concerning official visitors-

1. What action the Minister has taken as a result of the submission?

2. What recommendations which do not require legislation are presently under consideration?

3. When it is proposed that legislation on the question of official visitors will be introduced into the Parliament?


By letter dated the 10th of January, 1977, the Honorable the Minister of Health advised the President of "Star", Victorian Association for the Retarded, as follows-

"Concerning the appointment of official visitors and the official visitors system I believe that many of the points you raise are well-founded and some improvement of the situation is desirable.

Many of the recommendations made would involve changes in legislation but no immediate action can be taken in this direction at present. Although a number of

amendments to the Mental Health Act have been recommended to me by the Mental Health Authority and other interested parties, the immediate concern of both the Government and myself is to establish the new Health Commission as recommended by the Syme-Townsend committee of inquiry. When the commission is appointed it will be appropriate for it, I believe, to investigate fully all arms of the heal th service and recommend amendments to the various Acts of Parliament that are consistent with the policies and patterns of administration it be.. lieves desirable.

For these reasons I will not make a de-. tailed reply to the points you have made. However, you should be aware that remedial action has been taken in regard to payments to official visitors for each hospital visit and the regulations have been amended to provide for a fee of $15 per visit.

Many of your non-legislative recommendations will receive consideration, particularly those relating to the consultation with a number of community agencies on persons suitabJe for appointment as official visitors, and those calling for more regular conferences of official visitors to replace the present practice of holding such a con~ ference each four years.

You can be assured that the situation re~ lating to the appointment of official visitors and the performance of their duties will be kept under review."

GERIATRIC CENTRE FOR EASTERN SUBURBS.


Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

1. Whether a decision has been made concerning the proposed Eastern Suburbs Geriatric Centre; if so, what deCision, indicating-(a) on what date it is proposed construction works will commence and be completed, respectively; (b) what services and facilities will be provided at the centre; and (c) what satellite facilities are pro~ posed in the region?

2. Whether any studies or surveys have been carried out for the purpose of determining the need for geriatric services and facilities in the eastern suburbs and/or for aged persons residing in the eastern suburbs; if so, whether a copy of the results of such surveys will be made available to the member for Brunswick?

3. What is the membership of any plan~ ning or research committee for the proposed centre?


1. A provisional committee of manage~ ment was formed in May, 1977, with the


objectives of establishing a geriatric centre in the eastern suburbs. It is too early at this stage to indicate when construction works will commence, a completion date, what services will be provided and the available satellite facilities. These matters are being considered by the provisional committee.

2. A feasibility study was carried out in 1971 by an interim committee, represented by the eight interested municipal councils in the eastern suburbs. A copy of this report would be available through the Nunawading City Council.

3. The provisional committee consists of-

Cr. C. P. James, President Mr. F. W. Cremean, Vice-President Mr. J. F. Edwards, Treasurer Mr. T. N. Lanham, Secretary Mrs. J. R. Baghel Mrs. J. Kevill Cr. E. P. Poelman Dr. D. J. Burne Cr. I. L. Cowin Cr. G. L. Pile Mr. A. J. Robinson Cr. G. R. Smart Cr. R. D. White

BRUNSWICK INTERSECTIONS. (Question No. 2201)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

In respect of the intersections of-(a) Melville Road and Pearson Street; and (b) Brunswick Road and Flemington Street, Brunswick-

1. How many accidents have been reported in each of the past five years, specifying the number of serious accidents?

2. When it is expected that lights will be installed at each intersection?


1. Melville Road does not intersect with Pearson Street. Accident details in respect of the intersection of Brunswick Road with FIeming Street, Brunswick are-

Year Fatal Injury Property Total damage

1972 Nil 1 Nil 1 1973 Nil 2 Nil 2 1974 Nil Nil Nil Nil 1975 Nil 1 3 4 1976 Nil Nil 1 1

2. The intersection of Brunswick Road with Fleming Street, Brunswick, has been included in the State-wide list of sites proposed for signalization under the State

Intersection Control Programme. I am unable to indicate at present when funds will be allocated for the installation of signals at the intersection. The council of the City of Brunswick can, if it so desires, proceed with the early installation of the signals under the provisions of the Deferred Payments Scheme associated with the STATCON programme.

PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. (Question No. 2202)

Mr. COLEMAN (Syndal) asked the Minister of Education-

In respect of primary school staffing-1. What is the ratio between men and

women class-room teachers in the Primary Schools Division, indicating whether any attempt is made to maintain that ratio at individual schools?

2. Whether the Education Department recognizes any danger in the absence of male teachers at some schools?



1. As at 12th March, 1977-

No. of teachers Men Women Total

(0) Special Class 544 215 759 (b) S.T. Class 1,386 338 1,724 ~C) A.R. .. 1,792 1,456 3,248 d) Assistant. . 3,181 13,079 16,260

Totals: 6,903 15,088 21,991

2. All teachers have the same rights in applying for fositions (without due regard to the sex 0 the applicant ) .

It is not possible to maintain a balance in appointments.

TOTAL AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN.

(Question No. 2203)

Mr. ROPER (Brunswick) asked the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-

In respect of the Total Australian Community Campaign-

1. When it was decided to undertake the campaign and on whose advice?

2.' What research studies were consulted prior to the decision being made?

3. What ethnic groups were consulted prior to the campaign being launched?

4. What moneys have been allocated in this and the next financial year, specifying how much has been spent to date, the items of expenditure, and where the remaining moneys will be spent?


Mr. JONA (Minister of Imnligration and Ethnic Affairs): The answer is-

1. The decision to undertake the campaign was made by the Minister on the recommendation of departmental officers early in 1977.

2. No studies were available on this type of campaign within the Australian context.

3. The Ministry had discussions with a wide range of community representatives and invited the ethnic media, the daily media, as well as Opposition and National Party Parliamentary representatives to comment on the format.

4. Television $ $

Production of 2 x 30 second commercial 7,000

Publicity Media time 20,040 27,040 Car stickers (5,000) 500 Badges (5,000) 450 T-shirts (1,000) 2,800 Posters (15,000) 3,500 7,250

Art and design and other professional media ex-expenses 2,210 Making of radio tapes 550 2,760

Radio 2 x 30 second com-mercials 3,590 3,590

40,640

No money has so far been allocated for the campaign in 1977-78.

WORKERS COMPENSATION. (Question No. 2204)


1. Whether injured workers are frequently made to wait two months or more for insurance companies to detennine liability to pay workers compensation and whether there has been a recent serious decline in the efficiency of the State Insurance Office in handling workers compensation claims, causing difficulties for the staft' in the office, and distress to injured workers claiming compensation; if so, what the Minister is prepared to do to ensure that-(a) injured workers have their claims attended to without undue delay; and (b) there is an improvement in the efficiency of the office?

2. Whether Mr. G. Kavadias, an employee of the Champion Meat Packing Company Ltd. who suffered an injury at work on 21st February this year, was not informed by Health Underwriting Insurance Company until 26th April that liability was denied, leaving him without any income for over two months; if so, whether he will ascertain and advise the reason for this delay?

3. Whether Mr. C. Attard, a worker at Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd. at Brooklyn, ceased work with an injury on 2nd March, 1977, and despite many attempts was unable to obtain any action on his claim until he was informed on 28th April that the State Insurance Office had arranged for him to see the company doctor on 9th May; if so, whether he will ascertain and advise the reason for these delays?

4. Whether workers compensation claims are further delayed by the refusal of an increasing number of doctors to undertake workers compensation cases?


1. Despite a very large influx of new business in the workers compensation field, and resulting administrative problems, the efficiency of the State Insurance Office in the processing of claims has been generally maintained. In fact, it is considered that following recent organizational changes the efficiency of the office has improved. At present most claims are processed within ten days of the receipt. Unavoidable delays, the causes of which are outside the control of the office, occur with respect to employees whose claims require further investigation and, in some cases, several weeks may elapse before such claims are finalized. However, such employees may apply to the Department of Social Security for the payment of sickness benefits, pending the outcome of their claims. Information in relation to the processing of workers compensation claims by insurers other than the State Insurance Office is not available to me.

2. I am advised that Mr. Kavadias's claim required investigation and that Mr. Kavadias contributed substantially to the delay by not responding to a letter which was forwarded to him by the insurer on 4th March, 1977.

3. Mr. Attard's claim required investigation. The delay was caused by the necessity .to refer Mr. Attard to an independent medical specialist for examination.

4. I understand that difficulties are being experienced in obtaining additional medical specialists to whom referrals may be made by the State Insurance Office. The matter has been discussed with the executive of the Australian Medical Association and is under consideration by the executive at present.


TEMPERATURE CONTROL IN NORTHERN AREA SCHOOLS.

(Question No. 2205)


In view of the acknowledged inadequacy of present methods to control the effects of excessively high temperatures in schools in northern areas of the State--

1. Whether the Public Works Department has been requested to prepare recommendations on the matter?

2. What steps will be taken to alleviate the position?



"I desire to say that it has been departmental policy for a number of years to provide evaporative cooling systems in new school buildings, new libraries and in extensions which involve four class-rooms or more at existing schools. This policy applied to schools in the north-western part of the State (north of a line drawn between Cohuna and Horsham).

In an endeavour to provide some further relief -in respect to class-rooms in existing schools I have approved a special programme to provide cooling facilities initially to nine primary schools, two high schools and one technical school, in the Sunraysia District and this has begun.

This programme will be extended during the 1977-78 financial year to progressively handle further schools in this zone in order of priority.

Detailed inquiries should be forwarded to the Regional Director of Education."

SCHOOL CLASS SIZES. (Question No. 2206)


With regard to each of the primary, secondary and technical divisions of the Education Department, how many classes fall within each of the following class sizes(a) 41 students and over; (b) 36 to 40 students; (c) 31 to 35 students; (d) 26 to 30 students; (e) 21 to 25 students; (1) 16 to 20 students; and (g) 15 students and under?



If I desire to say that the analysis for class sizes for schools in the primary and technical divisions for 1977 have not as yet been completed, although some figures are available.

Below are the figures for 1976 which are complete and serve as a good comparison with those figures that are available for 1977.

Class sizes No. of classes in each aroupiq Students Primary Secondary- Technical-

41 and over .. 20 36 to 40 1,056 19 5 31 to 35 5,382 1,554 64 26 to 30 3,629 2,836 1,063 21 to 25 1,795 1,450 757 16 to 20 792 650 796 15 and under :: 531 229 256

13,205 6,738 2,946

Note : -With respect to secondary and technical schools size of English classes only was used as the criterion for determining class sizes.

As far as 1977 is concerned for the Primary Division there are no classes of 41 and over. The number of classes in the 36-40 bracket has dropped to 315. However, those schools with these class sizes have had extra support staff given to them and do not have any major problems.

For the Secondary Division the figures are as follows-

Class sizes

Students

36 to 40 31 to 35 26 to 30 21 to 25 16 to 20 11 to 15 10 and less

No. of classes in Secondary Division

1977

11 1,116 3,099 I,S7S

74S 236

78

6,860

In the Technical Division there are no classes below 36-40 and only ten in the 31-35 bracket. It must be noted that these classes have been put together at the specific request of the teachers concerned.

As soon as the full analysis for 1977 is known, I will let you know."

REMEDIAL ENGLISH TEACHERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

(Question No. 2207) Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray) asked

the Minister of Education-With regard to the teaching of remedial

English in secondary schools-1. How many teachers are currently

teaching remedial English? 2. How many teachers were so employed

last year? ' 3. How many additional teachers are now

needed? Mr. THOMPSON (Minister o.f

Education) : The answer is-I advised the honorable member by letter

dated the 1st September, 1977, as foIlows-I desire to say that there is no 6ffichH

entitlement to a certain number of remedial teachers for any secondary school.


Secondary Schools Division 1. The majority of high schools in Vic

~oria are staffed generously over the "base" and where remedial problems are beyond the range of the class-room teacher, smaller withdrawal groups should be organized by the principal of the school with the staff at his disposal.

2. Staff returns from all high schools in Victoria indicate that 253· 7 (equivalent full-time) teachers are currently employed on remedial work in English. . Last year 271·5 (equivalent full-time) teachers were so employed.

3. As indicated under 1 above, secondary schools are staffed according to an establishment which enables principals to organize special programmes which may be necessary. Therefore, in the terms of your question the situation is similar to that applying in the Technical Schools Division. It . is not proposed to employ teachers specifically to teach remedial English.

Technical Schools Division 1, 2 and 3. No teachers are employed in

the Technical Schools Division specifically to teach remedial English.

The division does have some school-based, trained specialists from courses such as the Bachelor of Special Education at Monash University who work with the whole staff of their school in the same way as do visiting specialists from Special Services Division to develop a whole staff approach to learning problems across the curriculum.

Divisional policy is to regard language problems as symptoms of learning problems and to involve all teachers in overcoming them.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION V.I.P. FLATS AT

FALLS CREEK. (Question No. 2209)


Whether the State Electricity Commission is building, as part of a ranger's headquarters, two luxury self-contained V.I.P. flats at Falls Creek; if so-(a) what is the estimated cost of these flats; (b) for what purpose these flats are being constructed; and (c) whether he will assure the House that these flats will not become utilized by Government Ministers and commission personnel in the manner that other commission and Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works chalets have been used?


The Falls Creek Tourist Area Management Committee, not the State Electricity Commission, is currently having built staff

quarters at Falls Creek, which will comprise the area manager's residence, the ranger's residence and a small flat (bed-sitter) for committee use.

(a) The estimated cost of the quarters is $153,416, which was the lowest tender received. Building costs in any alpine village of course are much higher than in urban areas.

(b) The small flat is being provided for committee members and committee staff who have to visit Falls Creek on business. Most of these members are not residents of Falls Creek.

(c) The chairman of the committee has assured me that the flat will be used only for members visiting Falls Creek on business, for visitors also on business and for meetings.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER AUCTION SALES ACT.

(Question No. 2211) Mr. McINNES {Gippsland South)

asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

In respect of sections 29, 34, and 37 of the Auction Sales Act 1958-

1. How many prosecutions have been,( a) launched; and (b) successful against offenders within Victoria during the past ten years?

2. What were the names of the persons or companies prosecuted, and what penalties were imposed?

3. In respect of which selling centres successful prosecutions were launched?


1, 2 and 3. Inquiries indicate that the information is not readily available.

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS FUNDS.


Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

Whether information is available in respect of each friendly society, benefit association, medical service andlor hospital benefit fund for the year 1975-76; if so-(a) what was the income specifying contributions, interest, Commonwealth benefits and subsidies; (b) what was the exyenditure, specifying medical benefits hospita benefits, management and Commonwealth Government benefits; and (c) what was the total of each fund as at 30th June, 1976; if not, whether the Minister will obtain and supply the figures to the member for Brunswick as soon as possible?


Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of quested is set out in the following schedules. Special Education): The answer Figures relating to the medical services supplied by the ChIef Secretary is- funds do not include particulars of the

ancillary/paramedical type funds operated (a) , (b) and (c). The information re- by associations and societies.

HOSPITAL BENEFIT FUNDS--FRlENDLY SocIETIES AND BENEFIT AsSOCIATIONS.

Association or society

Friendly SocietiesM.U.I.O.O.F. G.U.H.B.S. I.O.O.F. .. U.A.O.D. A.O.F. in Vie. I.O.R. O.S.T. H.A.C.B.S.· G.U.O.F.G. P.A.F.S.* " A.N.A. I.N.F. T.B.S.

Benefit AssociationsH.B.A. L.V.H.H.S.A. V.M.H.S. G.M.H.B.A. M.D.H.M.F.

Totals

• Preliminary fiprel.

Income for year ended 30 June, 1976.

Contributions

$ 11,153,638

1,262,554 1,502,879 1,144,003

390,243 831,411 232,929

2,438,239 181,323 746,508

8,133,405 452,930 510,874

63,104,720 3,662,490

205,048 2,626,822

847,225

99,427,241

Interest

$

306,409 13,131 35,651 61,240 18,999 57,242 10,616 6,000

11,068 65,923

369,254

9,795

2,474,063 69,154

2,325 46,309 30,462

3,587,641

Commonwealth benefits and

subsidies

$ 1,982,408

235,635 384,612 124,676 40,085

192,051 44,742

605,162 24,103 95,441

1,292,975 35,042 12,504

14,550,063t n.a. 35,313

433,243 434,154

20,522,209

Other income

$

151,810

650,485

25,693

827,988

Total income

$

13,594,265 1,511,320 1,923,142 1,329,919

449,327 1.080,704

288,287 3,049,401

216,494 907,872

9,795,634 487,972 533,173

80,779,331 3,731,644

242,686 3,106,374 1,337,534

124,365,079

t Commonwealth Government subsidies only; the filure (or Commonwealth Government benefits is not available. n.a. Not available.

MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDS - FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND BENEFIT ASSOCIATIONS.


Friendly SocietiesM.U.I.O.O.F. G.U.H.B.S. lO.O.F. " U.A.O.D. A.O.F. in Vie. I.O.R. O.S.T. H.A.C.B.S.· G.U.O.F.G. P.A.F.S.· .. A.N.A. I.N.F.· T.B.S.

Benefit AssociationsH.B.A. L.V.H.H.S.A. V.M.H.S. G.M.H.B.A. M.D.H.M.F.

Totals

Income for year ended 30 June, 1976.

Contributions

$ 691,784

16,455 5,894

16,624 24,657 38,875

4 44,404

215 55,272

627,076 136

2,578

(-) 12,483 103,723

125,569 (-) 1,993

1,738,790

Interest

$ 70,731

6,417 1,399 2,769 1,125

21,080 1,000

2,890 864

74,992

1,694

172,169 46,824

391 16,259 15,685

436,289

Commonwealth benefits and

subsidies

$ 363,219 197,829 362,288 206,230

78,156 236,091

404,061 22,927

146,862 1,466,363

51,199 36,045

1,189,674t n.a. 26,896

378,465 133,677

5,299,982

Other income

$ 83,252

91,800 17,511

8,584

4,224,496

17,944

13,229

4,456,816

Total income

$ 1,208,986

220,701 461,381 243,134 103,938 296,046

1,004 448,465

26,032 202,998

2,168,431 51,335 48,901.

5,573,856 150,547 45,231

520,293 160,598

11,931,871

• Preliminary fiaures. t Commonwealth Government subsidies only; the fipre (or Commonwealth Government benefits is not available: n.a. Not available.

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] on Notice.

HOSPITAL BENEFIT FuNDS--F'RIENDLY SocIETIES AND BENEFIT AsSOCIATIONS.

Expenditure for year ended 30 June, 1976.

Hospital Commonwealth Association or society Management Government benefits benefits

$ $ $ Friendly Societies-

M.U.I.O.O.F. .. 9,455,854 1,227,681 513,549 G.U.H.B.S. 1,208,411 136,278 71,338 LO.O.F. 1,541,940 217,901 93,137 U.A.O.D. 912,314 118,886 44,582 A.O.F. in Vic. .. 316,262 40,867 17,035 I.O.R ... 860,708 74,212 44,956 O.S.T ... 211,677 34,899 9,800 H.A.C.B.S.· 2,322,211 163,215 101,894 G.U.O.F.G. 119,616 38,665 5,918 P.A.F.S.* 644,762 69,863 31,928 A.N.A. 6,832,730 721,178 382,444 LN.F. 380,158 55,002 20,406 T.B.S ... 263,469 51,106 11,188

Benefit Associations-H.B.A ... 60,498,918 9,664,773 n.a. L.V.H.H.S.A. .. 2,495,214 989,308 n.a . Y.M.H.S. 194,896 28,197 10,564 G.M.H.B.A. 2,330,626 316,031 119,836 M.D.H.M.F. 1,029,875 50.385 71,633

Totals 91,619,641 13,998,447 1,550,208

• Preliminary figures. n.a. Not available.

MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDS-FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND BENEFIT AsSOCIATIONS.

Expenditure for year ended 30 June, 1976.


Friendly SocietiesM.U.I.O.O.F. G.U.H.B.S. l.O.O.F. .. U.A.O.D ... A.O.F. in Vic. I.O.R. O.s.T. " H.A.C.B.S.· G.U.O.F.G. P.A.F.S.· .. A.N.A. LN.F.· T.B.S.

Benefit AssociationsH.B.A. .. L.V.H.H.S.A. Y.M.H.S. G.M.H.B.A. M.D.H.M.F.

Totals

• Preliminary figures. n.a. Not available.

Medical benefits

$

1,261,005 56,824 91,214 85,597 15,018 25,987

70,613 12,406 91,498

549,140 12,603

998

1,135,912 380,913

22,176 169,891

19,486

4,001,281

Management

$

198,191 32,435 73,559 12,794 5,350

32,418

24,921 17,523 33,660

294,089 34

258

41,279 116,670

2,823 82,180

(-) 20,977

947,207

Commonwealth Government

benefits

$

95,556 179,444 321,587 189,700 69,123

215,213

370,580 19,993

135,669 1,308,657

46,198 35,061

n.a. n.a.

22,541 285,177 97,395

3,391,894

Other expenditure

$

25,000

26

25,026

9225

Total expenditure

$

11,197,084 1,416,027 1,852,978 1.075,782

374,164 979,876 256,376

2,587.320 164,199 746,553

7,936,352 455,566 325,763

70,163,691 3,484.522

233,657 2,766,493 1,151,893

107,168,296

Total expenditure

$

1,554,752 268,703 486,360 288,091 89,491

298,618

466,114 49,922

260,827 2,151,886

58,835 36,317

1,177,191 497,583

47,566 537,248 95,904

8,365,408


HOSPITAL BENEFITS AND MEDICAL SERVICES FuNDS-FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND BENEFIT AsSOCIATIONS.

Balances of funds as at 30 June. 1976.


Friendly Societies-M.U.I.O.O.F. G.U.H.B.S. I.O.O.F.

. U.A.O.D. A.O.F. in Vie. 1.0.R ... O.S.T ... H.A.C.B.S.* G.U.O.F.G. P.A.F.S.* A.N.A. I.N.F ... T.B.S ...

Benefit Associations-H.B.A. L.V.H.H.S.A. Y.M.H.S. G.M.H.B.A. M.D.H.M.F.

Totals

• Preliminary figures.

Abbreviations: M.U.1.0.0.F.-Manchester Unity Indepen

dent Order of Oddfellows. G.U.H.B.S.-Grand United Hospital Bene

fit Society. I.O.O.F.-Independent Order of Odd

fellows. U.A.O.D.-United Ancient Order of

Druids. A.O.F. in Vic.-Ancient Order of Foresters

in Victoria. I.O.R.-Independent Order of Rechabites. O.S.T.-Qrder of the Sons of Temperance. H.A.C.B.S.-Hibernian Australasian Cath-

olic Benefit SOciety. G.U.O.F.G.-Grand United Order of Free

Gardeners. P.A.F.S.-Protestant Alliance Friendly

Society. A.N.A.-Australian Natives Association. I.N.F.-Irish National Foresters. T.B.S.-Tramways Benefit Society. H.B.A.-Hospital Benefits Association. L.V.H.H.S.A.-Latrobe Valley Hospitals

and Health Services Association. Y.M.H.S.-Yalloum Medical and Hospital

Society. G.M.H.B.A.-Geelong Medical and Hos

pital Benefits Association·. M.D.H.M.F.-Mildura District Hospital

and Medical Fund.

Hospital benefits Medical services fund fund

$ $

4,630,598 165,004 379,906 139,528 662,381 (-) 103,981 709,851 (-) 8,771 290,208 53,804 735,402 144,784 159,545 15,268 681,512 37,911 205,932 (-) 73 566,042 (-) 65,717

6,051,120 509,908 96,904 * (-) 23,916

336,210 14,454

31,066,863 2,220,795 802,434 920,915 206,666 39,955

1,283,831 180,076 496,146 144,366

49,361,551 4,384,310

FAILURE TO REPORT EMPLOYEE ACCIDENTS.

(Question No. 2213)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry-

In respect of each injury referred to in the answer to question No. 2024 on 3rd May. 1977-

1. Who was the employer of each injured person?

2. What subsequent action was taken in respect of the safe operation of each machine involved?

3. What fines or penalties were imposed and on whom?

4. When each of the premises was last inspected?

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

It is not my practice to divulge the names of employers who have been convicted for breaches of the Labour and Industry Act.


2.

Prosecution date

11th February, 1976

1st ~arch, 1976

11th March, 1976 ..

29th April, 1976

30th April, 1976

31st May, 1976

Action taken in respect of the safe operation of each

machine involved

Guarding fitted in accordance with the Labour and Industry Act and Regulations





Precautions have been taken to prevent recurrence. Employees must wear hair nets to confine hair close to the head

Prosecution date

7th June t 1976

17th June, 1976

28th October, 1976 ..

11th November, 1976

29th November, 1976

6th December, 1976

7th ~arch, 1977

Action taken in respect of the safe operation of each

machine involved







~achine not been used since accident. Existing guarding to be modified before machine can be used

3. Details of the fines and penalties imposed, and on whom, are-

Prosecution date

11th February, 1976

Ist ~arch, 1976

11th ~arch, 1976

29th April, 1976

30th April, 1976

31st May, 1976

Breach

Failing to report accident Failing to guard a mincing machine Failing to report accident Failing to guard a trimming' machine Failing to report accident Failing to guard an eyelet press machine Failing to report accident Failing to guard a cake-slicing machine Failing to report accident Failing to guard bench saw .. Permitting person under 18 years of age to

work at saw Failing to report accident

Allowing a person to work among or near moving machinery without hair cut short or securely fixed and confined close to head by net or otherwise

Fine Court imposed costa

$ $

50.00 24.58 50.00 20.00 70.00 1.88 75.00

200.00 1. 78 20.00 80.00 149.00 25.00

100.00 24.16

100.00 Defendant 63.00 released on entering into a re-cognizance of $200 to be on good behaviour


Prosecution date Breach Fine Court imposed costs

S S 12th February, 1976 7th June, 1976 17th June, 1976

28th October, 1976

11th November, 1976 ..

29th November, 1976 ..

Failing to report accident .. Failing to guard a circuJar saw Failing to report accident .. Failing to guard a power press Failing to report accident .. Failing to guard a docking saw Failing to report accident .. Failing to guard a mincing machine

10.00 22.40 50.00 1.20 10.00 50.00 56.50 20.00 20.00 37.11 10.00 50.00 120.00

Failing to report accident . . . . 50.00 Failing to guard a paper-cutting guillotine .. Allowing a person under 18 years of age to operate

50.00 65.00

a power guillotine 200.00 6th December, 1976

7th March, 1977

Failing to report accident .. Failing to guard a brake press

10.00 100.00 51.00

Failing to report accident . . . . 50.00 50.00 79.50 50.00

Failing to guard a power fress .. Failing to guard treadJe 0 power press

4.

Prosecution date

11th February, 1976 lit March, 1976 .. 11th March, 1976 29th April, 1976 .. 30th April, 1976 .. 311t May, 1976 .. 7th June, 1976 .. 17th June, 1976 .. 28th October, 1976 11th November, 1976 29th November, 1976 6th December, 1976 7th March, 1977 ..

Date on which premises were last inspected

· . 11th March, 1976 · . 13th July, 1976 .. 14th April, 1976 .. 25th February, 1977 · . 15th July, 1976 .. 7th November" 1975

2nd July. 197t) .. 9th July, 1976 .. 23rd March, 1977 · . 10th January, 1977 · . 14th January, 1977 · . 10th February, 1977 .. 25th March, 1977

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMME

STATEMENT. (Question No. 2214)

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

In respect of the statement on the Victorian Family and Community Services Programme, how many copies of the statement which appeared in Hansard on 27th April, 1977, were printed on his behalf, indicating at what cost, who will meet the cost, and to whom copies were distributed?


Two thousand copies of the statement were initially printed at a total cost of $244.36 which will be paid by the Social Welfare Department.

It is intended that copies will be distributed to all organizations, Local Government bodies, members of Parliament and interested citizens who were prepared to assist in the consultation phase prior to the development of this report and to those persons who are prepared to assist in the more comprehensive consultation towards

the most appropriate means for the further development of social welfare systems in Victoria as outlined in the report.

I draw the honorable member's attention particularly to the penultimate paragraph of the statement. If the honorable member is aware of community bodies or organizations who would want copies of the report, the Social Welfare Department will be pleased to provide them upon request. If necessary, a reprint will be made.

SCHOOL LmRARIES. (Question No. 2215)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Minister of Education-

In respect of libraries financed by the Commonwealth Government, whether he will ascertain which principals of secondary schools have exercised their responsibility -(a) to reserve such libraries exclusively for library use; and (b) to permit use of such libraries as class-rooms?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 26th August, 1977, that once a library has been built from taxpayers funds it is the responsibility of the principal to ensure that the best possible use is made of that library having regard to the particular needs of the school.

POLLUTING OF YARRA RIVER. (Question No. 2216)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-. 1. On how many occasions this year, raw sewage has been discharged into the Yarra River by the Melbourne and Metropolitan


Board of Works, indicating in each case(a) the date; (b) the ,reason for the discharge being authorized; (c) the duration of the discharge; and (d) the amount of sewage involved?

2. Whether the Minister will provide comparable information for any or all of the five preceding years?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation): The answer supplied by the Minister of Water Supply is-

1. (a) 7th-9th April, 1977.

(b) Western metropolitan sewer sheds were subject to intense and prolonged tropical-type precipitation of 99 mm which caused considerable stormwater infiltration into the sewerage system. In order to prevent the surcharge of sewage from householders' premises, operation of the river stormwater relief was authorized.

(c) 43·25 hours.

(d) Not metered.

2. The following information refers to the previous three years--

1976: 4 overflows 1975: 17 overflows 1974: 13 overflows.

Only one of these overflows, viz.: May, 1974, was comparable with that which occurred after the storm of 7th-8th April, 1977 and all occurred prior to the final commissioning of the trunk sewer to South Eastern purification plant in August, 1976.

MELBOURNE UNDERGROUND RAIL LOOP.

(Question No. 2218)


1. On how many occasions since May, 1976, heavy industrial trucks have been used for extended periods in connection with the construction of the underground rail loop in the vicinity of Lansdowne Street and Wellington Parade between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5.45 a.m.?

2. What is the relative labour cost of employing drivers and other workers for night shift compared with day shift work?

3. Whether the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority is exempted from prosecution under the Environment Protection (Noise Control) Act 1975?

4. Whether the Environment Protection AuthOrity has made representations to the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority to impose a night time curfew; if so, to what effect?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Transport) : The answer is-

1. Records of the movements of heavy trucks have not been maintained by the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority until recently.

Following complaints in June this year, I asked the authority to arrange for engineers supervising loop work to monitor trucks' movements in the area and to take steps to keep the noise to a minimum. Measures which have been taken to minimize noise include-

completely enclosing the stockpile area; unloading rail trucks at the bottom of the

work site ramp; changing the method of handling tunnel

spoil from trucks to conveyor system. 2. There is a night shift loading of 15 per

cent on the day shift rate. 3. I understand that the Environment

Protection Authority does not have the legislative powers in relation to noise emanating' from construction activity.

However, I understand that the noise from the operation of trucks may be covered by section 48B of the Environment Protection (Noise Control) Act 1975.

4. I am informed by the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority that the Environment Protection Authority has not made representations to the authority to impose a night curfew.

RAILWAY RESIDENCES. (Question No. 2219)


1. What action the Victorian Railways Board has taken to permit railway employees to purchase railway residences in areas where services are to be withdrawn?

2. How many railway residences there are in Wonthaggi and what action has been taken to dispose of them?

3. In respect of an application by a railway worker to purchase the property at 38 Campbell Street, Wonthaggl, when the applicatIon was received, indicating-( a) when it was acknowledged; and (b) what action has been taken?


1. Favourable consideration is given to applications from railway employees to purchase railway houses occupied by them in areas where services are to be withdrawn if land titles are readily transferable.

2. There are twelve railway houses at Wonthaggi. All of the houses are on land which will revert to the Crown when no longer required for railway purposes, and the railways intend to offer the houses for sale for removal.


3. An application to purchase the railway house at 38 Campbell Street, Wonthaggi, was received from the occupant on 4th April, 1977. On 17th December, 1976, the occupant was informed verbally at Wonthaggi that the house was on Crown land and would be offered for sale for removal when no longer required departmentally and this information has again been conveyed to him by letter dated 6th May, 1977.

FREEWAYF2. (Question 2220)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Minister of Transport-

In respect of the $760,000 allocated in the current financial year for land acquisition for the Freeway F2 in the area from Clifton Hill to Bell Street, and the $835,000 allocated for the area from Bell Street to Mahoneys Road, what are the circumstances in which it was envisaged claims for compensation on the grounds of hardship might arise during the financial year, and in which streets persons making claims have to live in order to be eligible for such compensation?


This question relates to my answer to your earlier question No. 2049.

Some examples of the circumstances in which claims for compensation on the grounds of hardship arise are--

(a) elderly people desiring to sell their property and purchase smaller accommodation but who have not been able to dispose of their property on the open market at a reasonable price because of the board's proposals;

(b) owners of property desiring to shift to another State or location for health reasons, change of job, retirement etc., but who have not been able to dispose of their property on the open market at a reasonable price because of the board's proposals;

(c) executors of property which is involved in the winding up of the affairs of a deceased estate;

(d) owners of vacant land who are unable to proceed with sub-divisions or other developments because of the board's proposals;

(e) owners of industrial or business premises who wish to extend their premises but are unable to do so because of the board's proposals;

(J) owners of industrial or business premmises who wish to relocate their industry or business but are unable to do so as they are not able to

dispose of their present property on the open market at a reasonable price because of the board's proposals.

The properties concerned would need to be wholly or partly affected by the board's proposals for Freeway F2.

I reiterate my remarks forwarded to the honorable member in previous answers on this matter, that the allocation for land acquisition merely makes allowance for any requests by landowners for compensation on the grounds of hardship that may arise during this financial year.

FAILURE TO REPORT EMPLOYEE ACCIDENTS.

(Question No. 2221)

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry-

Further to the answer given to question No. 2024 on 3rd May, 1977, when each case was prosecuted and what fine or penalty was imposed?

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

The information sought in this question is provided in the answer given to the third part of question No. 2213.

MEDIBANK HOSPITALS AGREEMENT.

(Question No. 2223)


In respect of the Medibank Hospitals Agreement, whether any hospital in Victoria can charge fees to a privately insured patient who elects for hospital medical treatment irrespective of the extent of that person's insurance cover; if so, which hospitals and whether the Hospitals and Charities Commission has issued any circulars on the matter and, in that event, whether copies will be made available to the member for Brunswick?


Under the Commonwealth-State Hospitals Cost Sharing Agreement, all recognized hospitals in Victoria may raise a charge of $20 per day in respect of a privately insured in-patient receiving treatment provided exclusively by a medical officer ( excluding resident medical officers and registrars) employed by the hospital on a full-time or a sessional basis, with no right of private practice.


This instruction was issued by the Hospitals and Charities Commission in circular No. 25/1977, dated 5th April, 1977. Copies will be made available to the member for Brunswick.

MANS FIELD AUTISTIC PLAYSCHOOL.

(Question No. 2225)


1. What grants have been made to the Mansfield Autistic Playschool, since its opening?

2. On what basis the playschool is presently funded and what the funding basis will be for 1977-78?


1. An amount of $20,000 was made available by the State Treasury during the 1976-77 financial year to the Mansfield Autistic Playschool towards costs other than salary costs. The matter is to be reviewed in the 1977-78 financial year.

2. In addition to the grant referred to above the Commonwealth Department of Social Security is at present providing a salary subsidy at the rate of 50 per cent of the total salary paid to the director of the playschool, three teachers, the housekeeper and three house parents.

LARMENIER SPECIAL SCHOOL. (Question No. 2226)


In respect of the Larmenier Special School-

1. Whether the Minister or the Department of Health has been asked to make grants to the school for recurrent assistance; if so, for what recurrent assistance and with what result?

2. Whether the State has been in touch with the Commonwealth Government concerning additional assistance to the school; if so, with what result?

3. Whether the State will make money available towards the funding of staff, or at least the psychologist, social worker, and liaison officer?

4. Whether the Minister will see a deputation from the school?


1. The school has made application for funding to cover the cost of employing parttime staff including a psychologist, social worker, paediatrician and a school liaison officer at an estimated annual cost of $20,000.

2. The school has not, at present, submitted a formal application for funding of the project under the Community Health Programme. An inquiry from the Commonwealth Department of Health has disclosed that an application should now be forwarded for consideration when and if funds are available for new projects.

3. If the project referred to in item 2 above is approved under the Community Health Programme, the State would provide its normal contribution.

4. Until such time as the result of the application referred to above is known, no good purpose would be served in receiving a deputation.

HOUSING COMMISSION HOMES IN RESERVOIR ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 2227) Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir) asked

the Minister of Housing-1. Whether it is proposed to insulate Hous,;

ing Commission houses in the electoral district of Reservoir, particularly in East Reservoir; if so-(a) how; (b) when; and (c) whether prefabricated concrete housing is to be so treated and whether this type of house will be given priority due to ~the problems of dampness and cold?

2. Whether other measures are proposed to provide adequate heating in these prefabricated concrete houses?

Mr. HA YES (Minister of Housing): The answer is-

1. The commission proposes to insulate the ceilings of all tenanted Housing Commission homes in the State of Victoria.

(a) The whole of the ceiling areas are to be insulated with 75 mm fibreglass batt insulation.

(b) The insulation programme in both country and metropolitan areas will be started within the next few months and it is estimated all existing tenanted houses will be insulated within four years.

Installation will be programmed on a locality basis and in approximately five-year age groups, with the oldest first.

(c) Yes, but as previously stated, priority will be on a locality and age basis, and not on the type of construction.

2. The commission has no proposals for increasing heating facilities in existing prefabricated concrete housing, other than defence service houses. The commission


will be giving improvement of heating consideration, as current modernization programmes are finalized.

FOOTSCRA YEARLY TREA1MENT CENTRE.


Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

In respect of the Footscray Early Treatment Centre and its staffing-

1. How many positions the Public Service Board has created, specifying such positions and the date of their creation?

2. Which positions have been advertised, specifying the date of first advertising?

3. How many positions have been filled? 4. How many medical officers have so far

been created by amendments to the mental health regulations, how many have been advertised, and how many filled?


1. Eighty five positions have been created by the Public Service Board.

Details of poSitions and date of creation are shown hereunder. 1 x Administrative Officer, Class

.. B .. Created 16th 1 x Director of Nursing, Grade June, 1976

II. I x Administrative Officer, Class

"en 2 x Administrative Officer, Class

"E" 1 x Clinical Psychologist, Class

" P-2 " 1 x Psychologist, Class" P-l " 1 x Social Worker, Class" SW -3 " 1 ]I[ SocialWorker,Class"SW-2" J x Sole Pharmacist, Class

"PC-3 " 1 x Occupational Therapist, Class

.. T-3" 3 x Occupational Therapist, Class

"T-l " Created 1 x Assistant Director of Nursing 3rdMay,1977 2 x Assistant Head Nurse 7 x Charge Nurse 7 x Deputy Charge Nurse 22 x Ward Nurse 1 x Storekeeper, Grade I. 1 x Case Aide 3 x Stenographer, Grade I. I x Engineer Mechanic, Grade I. 2 x Typist, Grade I. 2 x Clerical Assistant, Grade I. 1 x Telephonist, Grade 1. 4 x Inquiry Officer 2 x Motor Driver, Grade Ill. 1 x Laundryhand, Grade II. t x Craft Supervisor, Grade I. 3 . x Cleaner (Heavy Duties) 8 x Kitchen and Wardsmaid 1 x Laundryhand, Grade I. t x General Hand

2. 1 x Administrative Officer, Class cc B ". 1 x Director of Nursing, Grade 11.

Advertised 3rd August. 1976.

3. 1 x Administrative Officer, Class cc B ". (Manager).

4. Seven medical positions as shown hereunder have been created by amendments to the Mental Health Regulations.

1 x Psychiatrist Superintendent, Group 11. 2 x Consultant PsychiatriSts. 1 x Psychiatrist. 3 x Medical Officers.

All positions have been advertised. The three positions of medical officer have been filled and are awaiting transfer at an appropriate date.

HIGHETI GASWORKS SITE. (Question No. 2229)

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

What was the basis and terms of the transaction concerning the transfer of the Highett gasworks site from the Gas and Fuel Corporation to the local municipality or to the Government for use by the local community, specifying in particular-Ca) how the transfer from the Gas and Fuel Corporation was effected or is to be effected; and (b) what considerations was paid or is to be paid; indicating, by whom, to whom, and in respect of what land?


On 12th August, 1976, the corporation entered into a contract to sell to the Government an area of 8· 5 hectares of land, being portion of the Highett gasworks site, for a consideration of $2,500,000 .

The terms of sale provided for a deposit of $500,000, which was paid to the corporation on 12th September, 1976, and the balance of the purchase price to be paid by instalments at any time or times prior to 12th August, 1979. The contract of sale does not provide a fixed schedule of repayments but stipulates that interest at the rate of 9·8 per cent per annum is payable half yearly on the balance of the purchase price outstanding at the commencement of each half yearly period. It also provides that the Government shall demolish the three gasholders situated on the land without cost to, and to the satisfaction of the corporation prior to the 12th August, 1977.

It is anticipated that transfer of the property to the Crown will be effected under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 in due course.


DANDENONG COUNTY COURT SI'ITINGS.

(Question No. 2230)

Mr. LIND (Dandenong) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Attomey-General-

Whether it is intended to arrange sittings of the County Court in Dandenong; if so, when sittings are likely to commence; if not, why?

Mr. MACLELLAN (Minister of Labour and Industry): The answer supplied by the Attorney-General is-

It is not intended at this stage to have sittings of the County Court at Dandenong. Consideration has been given to the possibility of arranging County Court sittings at places other than Melbourne in or near the metropolitan area, and more particularly sittings of the County Court in its civil jurisdiction, but this is not yet considered practicable, either in Dandenong or elsewhere in the metropolitan area outside the city.

Nonetheless, it is proposed to establish a full-time sub-registry of the County Court in Dandenong for the benefit of local practitioners as soon as suitable accommodation and staffing requirements can be finalized. The operations of the sub-registry will be the responsibility of the County Court Registrar at Melbourne. It is hoped that the sub-registry can be opened later this year.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS BOARD. (Question No. 2231)

Mr. LIND (Dandenong) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

Whether reciprocal arrangements are contemplated between the Commonwealth Department of Social Security and the Motor Accidents Board; if so, when such arrangements are likely to operate; if not, why?


The Motor Accidents Board is liable to pay loss of income at the level of 80 per cent of net pre-accident income. The amount so assessed is normally higher than amounts that would otherwise be payable as sickness benefits under the Commonwealth Social Services Act 1947-1970. Where this is the case, a person's right to sickness benefits is foregone during the period that the board pays benefits. If a person's entitlement to sickness benefits exceeds the amount payable by the board, that person can apply to the Department of Social Security for benefits in respect of the short-fall.

WARRANTIES FOR SOCIAL WORKERS.

(Question No. 2232)

Mr. LIND (Dandenong) asked the Minister for Social Welfare-

Whether it is the intention of the Government to provide for warranties amongst social workers, as is done by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security; if so, when such a scheme will commence; if not, why?


I assume by the term "warrantee" that the honorable member means that social workers should be invested with the power to present clients' benefit cheques for payment in situations where the recipient is unable to do so himself by reason of incapacitation. I do not believe that officers of my department need to be licensed to undertake such duties as section 22 of the Social Welfare Act specifically empowers the department to take certain action in the case of illness, etc. of a client.

Part (b) of that section provides-CC (The Director-General) shall make such arrangements as he thinks proper as to the person to whom payments are to be made during such incapacity in respect of the maintenance of the child or young person." Pursuant to that section, where an assisted parent caring for her children becomes incapable of managing her financial matters, payment may be paid to a trustee upon the parent consenting. I believe such instances are extremely rare but when they do occur, the terms of section 22 (b) are sufficient to ensure that the client is adequately provided for, hence there is no requirement for a warrantee scheme to be installed.

ELECTRIFICATION OF RAIL SERVICES.

(Question No. 2233)


1. What plans the Government has for an electrified rail service from Broadmeadows to Craigieburn?

2. What is the population of the Craigiebum area which would be served by such a rail link?

3. What is the expected usage of such a line?

4. What is the estimated cost, the date of commencement, and the date of completion?

5. What is the comparative usage of that section of the Werribee-Melbourne service which is about to be electrified?



1. 3 and 4. There are no immediate plans to electrify the rail service between Broadmeadows and Craigieburn.

2. The present population of the township of Craigieburn is approximately 3.000.

5. There is a well established rail usage pattern from Werribee. where the existing population of the township is approximately 20.000.

YEA HIGH SCHOOL. (Question No. 2234)

Mr. PLOWMAN (Evelyn) asked the Minister of Education-

In respect of the provision of a science room at Yea High School-

1. When it is proposed to build the science room?

2. Whether the Education Department's original proposal was to provide a science room in the 1975-76 financial year?

3. Whether this project has now been relegated to group C. long term programme. by the Regional Priorities Review Committee; if so, on what grounds this decision was made?


I advised the honorable member by letter dated the 23rd May, 1977, as follows-

1. The provision of a science room at Yea High School has been considered by the Benalla Regional Priorities Review Committee but the priority allocated is such that the work will not proceed next financial year. At this stage I cannot say exactly when the room will be built.

2. It was intended to proceed with this room in 1975-76 but in view of the cut back in Commonwealth funding for works of this type at that time, it was not possible for the work to proceed.

3. This project has been included in group C long term programme by the Regional Priorities Review Committee. The decision was made on the basis of identifying areas of greatest need, comparative adequacy of existing facilities, and financial limitations.

WONTHAGGI RAILWAY STATION. (Question No. 2235)


1. How many staff are employed at the Wonthaggi railway station and in what classifications?

2. What arrangements have been made concerning the future employment of each of the staff and when these staff were informed of the arrangements?


1. At present the staff employed at Wonthaggi comprises 1 clerical assistant, class 3, one parcels assistant and one shedman, class 2.

2. Each of these employees was interviewed concerning his future on 16th December, 1976. Arrangements have been made for the clerical assistant and shedman to transfer to Leongatha or Korumburra, and for the parcels assistant to transfer to Morwell following the closure of the Wonthaggi station.

REPORT ON FATAL ARARAT ACCIDENT.

(Question No. 2236) Mr. AUSTIN (Ripon) asked the

Minister for Social Welfare-Whether he has yet received the reports

of the results of the police investigation into the fatal accident which occured in Ararat on Sunday, 17th April, 1977, in which Broce Olver was killed; if so, whether he will make public the results of those reports?


The department did not receive a formal public report concerning the accident and I do not believe one is necessary. The alleged driver of the vehicle which collided with Mr. Olver's car was a youth trainee from Langi Kal Kal named Trevor Sutherland. That trainee was on approved week-end leave from the training centre when the incident occurred. He is now in Pentridge and has been remanded to appear at the Ararat Magistrates Court on 29th June. 1977, on the charges of theft of a motor car and culpable driving. It is believed that, following that court appearance. he will be remanded on account of further charges compriSing driving whilst under the influence, dangerous driving and other traffic offences.

I do not believe any comment from myself concerning the accident is warranted at this time. No doubt the media will report the facts of the case at the time of the court hearings.

GRANTS FOR BUSH FIRE VICTIMS. (Question No. 2237)

Mr. HOLDING (Richmond) asked the Premier-

Further to the answer to question No. 1986 given on 28th April, 1977-

1. What was the value of-(a) emergency food or clothing; (b) furniture; (c) cash payments; and (d) catering for volunteers and Government officials, made available by the Government?


2. If he will ascertain and advise the value of comparable assistance in each category made available by the Red Cross and other voluntary sources, respectively?

3. What amount of money was distributed by the Government prior to Tuesday, 5th April, 1977, and what comparable sums were drawn against relief funds raised by the Melbourne, Ballarat and Hamilton City Councils respectively?

4. Whether all local people employed by the Government in a temporary capacity in connection with the emergency have been paid for their services; if so, on what date the last payment was made?


1. The figures are not available. 2. No. 3. $6,336 had been paid by the Govern

ment and $24,450 from public appeal moneys.

4. Yes; The last payment was made on 2nd June, 1977, to persons whose employment ended on 27th May, 1977.

BUILDING CONTRACTS. (Question No. 2238)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Public Works-

1. On what basis the contracts for the North Shore Primary School renovations and the two-storey building occupied by the Barwon Regional Child Health Centre were let to C. Bramich of Coburg?

2. Which firms tendered for the contracts?

3. Why Geelong firms were not given special consideration in view of the large unemployment problem in Geelong?

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Public Works): The answer is-

1. Public tenders were called by advertisement in the Age.

2. J. Toth. C. B. Bramich. Harker Painting and Renovations.

3. No Geelong firm submitted a tender for either project.

POLICE STATIONS. (Question No. 2239)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. How many police personnel are expected to be stationed at the Norlane police station when it is expanded, indicating the areas from which additional personnel are to be transferred?

2. Whether the number of staff at the Central Geelong police headquarters will be reduced to allow for increases at Norlane?

3. What car parking facilities are to be provided to cater for extra staff?

4. When it is expected that the Corio police station will be established?


1. The authorized strength of the new police station which was established at Norlane on 26th June, 1977, is 21 members, comprising one senior sergeant, four sergeants and sixteen senior constables or constables. A new Criminal Investigation Branch, with a staff of one detective sergeant and three detective senior constables or constables, was established at the police station on the same date.

2. The establishment of the new police station and Criminal Investigation Branch at Norlane resulted in a decrease of one sergeant and six senior constables or constables in the strength of the Geelong police station.

3. At present there are no car parking facilities available at the Norlane police station to cater for extra staff. However, the Public Works Department is examining the situation to see if it would be feasible to provide parking facilities at the rear of the premises.

4. It is proposed to establish a 24-hour police station and divisional office at Corio. I am unable to indicate at present when construction will commence.

MORNINGTON TO FRANKSTON PASSENGER TRANSPORT.

(Question No. 2240)

Mr. CATHIE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Transport-

1. How long a diesel rail passenger car has operated from Mornington to Frankston, indicating the average weekly number of passengers travelling in each direction for each year of operation?

2. When this service was terminated and why?

3. What private bus company now provides a passenger service on this route, indicating at what cost to the Government and how the fares compare with those charged for the diesel rail service?


1. The Frankston-Mornington diesel rail car service has operated since 12th September, 1966.


To obtain the passenger statistics sought by the honorable member -in full would entail considerable research involving a substantial number of man-hours. However, a

2nd January, 1971, to 26th June, 1971 3rd January,' 1976 to 26th June, 1976

2. It is assumed that the question refers to the withdrawal of the rail car service on 5th May, this year when, due to a shortage of locomotives, the diesel rail car was temporarily withdrawn and utilized on the Geelong hne. This enabled the release of locomotives for use in shifting urgent superphosphate consignments.

The diesel rail car service was returned to the Mornington line on 14th May.

3. During the temporary withdrawal of the rail car Peninsula Bus Lines provided an alternative service covering each of the scheduled six. return trips between Frank-8ton and Momington for $120 per day. Normal rail fares applied during the period of bus operation.

CHILDREN'S COURT HEARINGS. (Question No. 2241)

Mr. CA THIE (Carrum) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Attomey-General-

random sample of figures indicated the average number of passengers carried for each trip per week for the first six months of 1971 and 1976 respectively is as follows-

Momington to Frankston to Frankston Momington

16 16

15 18

How many Children's Court hearings have been held in each metropolitan court in each of the past five years to date, giving the monthly figures for each of the past twelve months?


I am able to supply certain details of the number of days on which Children's Court hearings were held in the metropolitan area for the years 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and these appear below but figures for 1973 are not available. The collation of statistics for 1973 would involve many hours of work and for that reason I am not prepared to direct that the records at each of the courts be examined. If 1973 figures are required for any particular court I will be pleased to provide them.

METROPOLITAN CHILDREN'S CoURTS.

Sitting Daya 1972 1974 197!5 1976

Box Hill 23 23 24 24 Brighton .. 4 Broadmeadows 21 21 22 21 Brunswick 4 Camberwell 4 Cheltenham 22 22 22 22 Coburg .. 4 Dandenong 22 20 22 22 Elstemwick 4 Femtree Gully 4 Fitzroy .. 4 Footscray 23 23 22 22 Frankston 23 23 23 23 Heidelberg 4 Malvern .. 4 Melbourne 247 249 246 250 Moonee Ponds 4 Northcote 4 Oakleigh 23 23 22 23 Prahran .. 4 Preston .. 24 21 21 22 Ringwood 4 23 Sunshine 22 24 24 23


The monthly figures for the twelve months ending 30th June, 1977, are as follows

Number of hearing days for period July. 1976 to June. 1977.

Courts July August Sc:;.m- October N~~m- n:m- January Febru- March April May June ary

Box Hill 2. 2. 2 2 2 Broadmeado~~ 2 2 2 2 1 Cheltenham 2 2 2 2 2 Dandenong .. 2 2 1 2 2 Footscray .. 2 2 2 2 2 Frankston .. 2 2 2 2 2 Melbourne .. 19 23 21 21 21 Oakleigh 2 2 2 2 2 Preston 2 2 2 2 2 Ringwood .. 2 2 2 2 2 Sunshine 2 2. 2 2 2

Section 4 of the Children's Court Act provides that a Children's Court shall be held at every place within the State of Victoria where a Magistrates Court is appointed to be held unless the Governor in Council otherwise orders. However. in recent years, the practice has been adopted of only holding Children's Courts in the metropolitan area at the courts listed above. The hearings are conducted by magistrates specializing in Children's Court work and based at the Children's Court, Melbourne. Of course. other magistrates can conduct Children's Courts under section 4 and it is thus possible but not likely that occasional Children's Court hearings were held at other metropolitan Magistrates Courts.

LAND IN LYGON STREET, CARLTON.

(Question No. 2242)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of Housing-

What is the reason for the delay in answering question No. 1776. first asked on 16th March, 1977, and when an answer will be given?


Refer to question No. 1776 answered 17th May, 1977.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS EMPLOYEES.

(Question No. 2243)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-

H he will ascertain and advise which relatives of the Chairman of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, including relatives by marriage. are employed by the board, indicating in what capacity in each case?

2 2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2.

20 J9 20 22 17 22 21 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2. 2 1 2 2 2. 2 2. 1 2. 2 2 1 2 2.


F. C. Castle, Eastern Farms Manager.

Mrs. F. C. Castle, Administrative officer (Nee Miss A. Rowlands, employed by Mel-bourne and Metropolitan Board of Works prior to marriage on 1st April, 1977).

P. L. Croxford, technical assistant.

ORANGE TRAMS. (Question No. 2244)


1. What major electrical work involving alterations to the orange trams is being undertaken at the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board's workshop at Preston, indicating at what cost?

2. Why this work was considered necessary?

3. How many trams-(a} have been modified; and (b) remain still to be modified?


1. Major electrical work involving alteration is being carried out on only one Z-class or orange tram at Preston workshops.

The reasons for this work are as follows

Since the contract for these trams was let there has been considerable development in a new form of electric motor control for trams, namely D.C. Thyristor (more generally called "chopper") control. This has been made possible by continued research and development in the electronic industries. The system is based on solid state technology and is now being introduced in the most up-to-date tram and rapid transit systems in North America and Europe.


In its more advanced form it uses regenerative braking which means that during the braking phase of its operation, the control system allows ~ergy produced by . the motors during braking to be fed back Into the overhead power supply at all tiIJ.les when the receptivity of the system permIts.

The nature of the "chopper" circuit reduces dramatically the power wast~d in ~e resistors carried under trams. This saVing in power can be up to 20 or 30 per cent of the total consumption. The new system thus not only offers savings in operating costs but also more efficient use of energy resources.

It is capable of producing an extremely smooth ride for passengers because of the stepless control of acceleration and braking with inherently less tendency to spin or skid wheels.

Because of the elimination of many mechanical parts associated with the pr~ vious contactor systems of motor control, It is also expected that maintenance will be reduced.

The project is being funded under the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974. Expenditure to date is, 1975-76 $95,000 and 1976-77 $45,000.

2. The present investigation will assist in the assessment of tenders for the next 100 trams to be purchased-for which tenders are currently being invited.

The work has been undertaken to allow the Tramways Board to keep in the forefront of the latest technology in this field, to gain first-hand knowledge of any problems associated with its use and to investigate the compatibility of preferentially blended, regenerative direct current thyristor traction control with the board's electrical distribution system.

3. This is a single prototype tram. It is not proposed that this modification will be carried out on any other trams of this current contract.

Name

MINISTRY FOR THE ARTS REPORTS.


Minister of the Arts-1. When the reports of the Ministry for

the Arts for 1974-75 and 1975-76 will be available?

2. What are the reasons for the delay in each case?

3. What is the target date for publishing the 1976-77 report?


1. September, 1977. 2. The work-load on the officers of the

Ministry. 3. October-November, 1977.

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.


Minister of the Arts-1. In respect of the 1975-76 financial year

and in 1976-77 to date, what organizations and persons are currently in receipt of cultural development grants, indicating how much has been received?

2. In which cases, if any, the Victorian Council of the Arts made a recommendation which led to a variation or rejection of a grant recommended by the Ministry for the Arts?


1. On 5th October 1976, in answer to your question on notice No. 636, I supplied you with the information now requested relating to 1975-76. Grants for 1976-77 are set out in the following schedule-

Total

Adelaide Festival Centre Trust (Victoria Opera Co.) Alexander Theatre Company

$

4,000.00 10,700.00 1,100.00 2,500.00

500.00 99,000.00 7,000.00

500.00 2,000.00

81,350.00 572.25

333,000.00 4,500.00

32,500.00 920.00

110,000.00 67,500.00

500.00

Ararat Golden Gateway Festival Arts and Crafts Society Arts Council-Colac Arts Council-Victoria .. Astra Chamber Music Society Austral Salon of Music . . . . . . . . Australian Association of Tertiary Art and Design Education Australian Ballet Australian Dance Theatre .. Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust .. AustraHan Musicians Guild " ., Australian National Memorial Theatre Australian National Playwrights Conference Australian Opera . . . . Australian Performing Group . . . . Australian Science Fiction Foundation Co-Op Ltd.

Questions

Ballarat Begonia Festival Ballarat Choral Society Ballarat City Band ..

Name

Ballarat Civic Male Choir Ballarat Music Lovers Club .. BaIlarat Orchestral Association Ballet Victoria .. Beechworth Music Group Benalla Memorial Band .. Bendigo Competitions Society

[6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.]

Bendigo Easter Fair Society .. . . Bendigo Musical Advancement Society Bendigo Music Lovers Club .. Benola Choristers . . . . Berriwillock Arts and Crafts Group Bogong Cattlemens Huts Boort Fiesta Committee Brighton Municipal Band .. British Music Society of Victoria Butterfield Drawings

Camberwell City Philharmonic Society Camberwell Music Society .. Caulfield Community Arts Centre Casterton Music Circle .. CastIemaine Drama Group .. CastIemaine Festival Children's Arena Theatre .. Children's Book Council of Australia City of Bendigo City of Footscray City of Mordialloc .. Colac City Band Colac Music Lovers Club Colac Players . . . . Conabeare, Mrs. B. (Wildflowers Collection) .. Contemporary Art Society of Australia-Victoria Craft Association of Victoria Creative School Holiday Club

Daylesford Highland Gathering .. Donald Music, Literature and Art Society Doncaster Templestowe Choral Society Doncaster Templestowe Youth Eisteddfod Drama Resource Centre

Eaglehawk Dahlia and Arts Festival Echuca Federal Band Echuca Music Group Echuca Rich River Festival " Embroiderers Guild . . . . . . Ewing East Malvern Combined Choirs

Ferntree Gully Arts Society .. Fitzroy Festival of All Nations Footscray Community Arts Centre Frankston City Band Frankston Theatre Group

Geelong Association of Music and Art Geelong Eisteddfod .. . . . . Geelong Society of Operatic and Dramatic Art Golden Square Brass Band .. Greek Festival Week .. Gwen Nisbet Music School Fund

on Notice. 9239

Total

S 10,000.00

100.00 1,925.00

200.00 100.00

1,500.00 200,000.00

100.00 1,140.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 1,500.00

200.00 100.00 350.00

2,000.00 850.00

1,780.00 900.00

1,200.00

300.00 950.00

5,000.00 200.00 800.00

10,000.00 36,000.00 2,000.00 2,160.00 3,000.00

500.00 1,010.00

300.00 400.00

5,000.00 600.00

25,000.00 3,800.00

1,650.00 150.00 150.00 500.00

2,023.00

750.00 2,125.00

100.00 2,500.00

400.00 250.00

200.00 16,000.00 5,000.00

640.00 300.00

1,500.00 360.00 750.00

1,260.00 1,000.00

500.00

9240 Questions

Hamilton Apex Qub Hamilton Arts Council Hamilton Eisteddfod Hartwell Eisteddfod

Name

Hawthorn City Band Heathcote Musical Society Heidelberg Repertory Group Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. Hoopla Productions Horsham City Band Horsham Music Club .. Horsham Orchestral Society ..

[ASSEMBLY.]

Joint Committee for Film and Television

Kew Philharmonic Society Kolobok Dance Centre .. Kyneton Daffodil and Arts Festival

Library Promotion Committee

McCelland Gallery .. . . Magic Mushroom Mime Troupe Malvern Artists Society .. Marist Brothers (Bendigo) Band Maryborough City Band .. Maryborough Arts Society .. Maryborough Golden Wattle Festival Maribymong Valley-Working Committee Meanjin Quarterley .. . . Melba Memorial Conservatorium of Music .. Melbourne Access Video and Medias Co-Op Ltd. Melbourne Chorale .. Melbourne City Council .. Melbourne Festival of Organ and Harpsichord Melbourne Film Festival Melbourne Mandolin Orchestra Melbourne Theatre Company Melbourne University Gallery Melbourne Youth Orchestra .. Mildura Arts Centre Mildura Little Theatre Moe Singers Montsalvat Moomba Festival .. Moorabbin City Band .. Moorabbin City Theatre Group Mordialloc Eisteddfod Musica Viva

National Institute of Dramatic Art National Music Camp .. National Theatre-Swan Hill Neo Kyma Polyethnic Music Nihonga Exhibition .. Northcote Dramatic Society North Eastern Musical Society " North Western Victoria Ballet Society

Olinda Singers Oriana Madrigal Choir

Pakenham District Brass Band Peninsula Arts Society Peninsula Music Society Photographic Assignments .. Pilgrim Puppet Theatre Pty. Ltd. . . . . . . Portland Council for Encouragement of Music and Art Print Council of Australia . . . • . . . .

on Notice.

Total

$ 300.00

1,200.00 600.00 650.00

1,425.00 50.00

400.00 2,405.00 6,000.00 1,360.00

200.00 50.00

150.00

150.00 57,000.00

800.00

1,000.00

600.00 14,000.00

500.00 950.00 480.00 500.00

2,000.00 1,000.00 4,000.00

10,000.00 225.00

15,400.00 93,500.00

3,000.00 7,300.00

370.00 310,500.00

5,500.00 10,000.00

750.00 50.00

100.00 2,500.00

55,000.00 845.00 200.00 200.00

18,000.00

500.00 300.00 600.00

2,900.00 9,750.00

200.00 100.00

10,000.00

50.00 400.00

1,345.00 100.00 200.00 165.00

12,000.00 300.00 800.00

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] on Notice.

Name

Redclitfs C. W .A. and Ballet Group .. Regional Galleries Association of Victoria Ringwood Eisteddfod .. Rochester Music and Drama Club Royal South Street Society .. . . Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind R.S.L. Military Band

St. Barnabas' Choir St. Cecilia Singers .. . . St. John's Eisteddfod-Ballarat Sale Eisteddfod .. Saltwater River Festival .. Sea Lake Little Theatre Group Seymour Music Club . . . . Shepparton Musical Advancement Society Shepparton Symphony Orchestra Shepparton Theatre Arts Group Sherbrooke Arts Society South Gippsland Eisteddfod Strathmore Theatrical Arts Society Sunshine Rainbow Workshop Swan Hill Apex Club Swan Hill City Band

The 1812 Theatre Theatre Australia Town of Stawell Tudor Choristers

P. Van Praagh

Victorian Amateur Cine Society Victorian Artists Society Victorian Ballet School Victorian Bands League .. Victorian College of the Arts .. Victorian Drama League . . . . Victorian Fellowship of Australian Writers Victorian Highland Pipe Band Victorian State Opera .. Victorian Police Bands .. Victorian Printmakers Group Victorian Tapestry Workshop Victorian Trades Hall Council

Wangaratta Arts Council Wangaratta Eisteddfod Wangaratta Players .. Warracknabeal and District Band Warracknabeal Music Club Warrandyte Arts Association .. Warrnambool Music Society Warrnambool Rotary Club Welsh, Garth Westside Singers .. Why Not Theatre .. Wodonga Citizens Band Wodonga Music Club .. .. .. .. .. Wolkenberg International (Rental of premises Victorian Ballet School) Wycheproof Arts Council

Yallourn Madrigal Singers . . . . Yallourn Orchestral and Choral Society

2. Nil.

Total

9241

Total

$

600.00 20,100.00

200.00 100.00

5,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00

100.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 500.00 300.00 100.00 600.00 430.00 800.00 550.00 400.00 100.00

2,000.00 1,000.00 1,430.00

500.00 2,000.00

500.00 2,000.00

2,000.00

50.00 3,000.00

38,600.00 10,000.00 15,962.50 4,500.00 2,000.00

25,000.00 183,000.00

3,500.00 1,000.00

24,500.00 2,500.00

1,500.00 200.00 100.00 975.00 100.00 400.00 100.00 300.00

4,767.00 100.00

3,600.00 1,310.00

100.00 3,733.33

600.00

100.00 350.00

2,175,193.0g


AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF ENTERTAINERS. (Question No. 2247)


1. What applications for assistance have been received by the Ministry for the Arts from the Australian College of Entertainers, indicating what action the Government proposes to take in this regard?

2. What assistance the college presently receives from the Government?

3. What are the aims and objectives of the college?

4. How many-Ca) staff; and (b) students are at the college?


1. The Australian College of Entertainers has asked the Ministry for the Arts to assist in locating suitable accommodation for the college and this being done.

2. Nil.

3. To establish standards and provide training for professional entertainers.

4. (a) Nineteen. (b) Approximately two hundred per year.

UNUSED RAILWAY. (Question No. 2249)


In respect of the currently unused railway line which runs eastward from Royal Park until it turns south near the corner of Park Street and St. George's Road, North Fitzroy, whether the Government will indicate what is the estimated cost of and undertake a feasibility study of-( a) extending the line along existing unused railway easements and across St. George's Road to link with the Epping line north of the Rushall station; (b) electrifying the line; and (c) providing double track wherever

necessary, in order to provide an inner circle line to convert the radial train lines in the northern inner suburbs into a grid; if not, why?


The Victorian Railways Board has advised me that the board's preliminary studies indicate that the extension, upgrading and electrification of the North Carlton loop line to provide a passenger service could not be justified at this stage. The board estimates the cost of electrification, track duplication and automatic signalling to be approximately $1' 75 million.

Sufficient width of railway land is being retained to ensure that future provision of such a service is not prejudiced.

LEVEL CROSSINGS. (Question No. 2250)


In respect of level crossings on the Melbourne-Epping railway line-

1. How many crossings there are on this line?

2. How many are-( a) protected, indicating the location and mode of protection; and (b) unprotected, indicating the location?

3. In respect of each year from 1972 to 1976, and In this year to date, how many major accidents have occurred at each crossing, indicating the number of-Ca) fatalities; and (b) injuries in each case?


1. 19.

2 and 3. There are no unprotected level crossings on this line.

The location of the crOSSings and their respective records of major accidents involving injuries and fatalities since 1972 are as follows-

Accident record Location Type or protection Date Killed Injured

Oifton Hill Ramsden Street Interlocked gates Merri Charles Street Northcote Arthurton Road

" Northcote Beavers Road Hand gates Croxton Woolton Avenue

" Croxton Normanby Avenue Ini~rlocked gates Thombury Hutton Street

Thombury Oakover Road Hand gates Bell Bell Street Boom barriers 9th October, 1974 Preston Cramer Street

" Preston. Murray Road 24th August, 1972 Regent Regent Street


Location Date Accident recorded Killed Injured' Type of protection

Reservoir Keon Park Thomastown Thomastown Thomastown Thomastown Thomastown Thomastown Lalor

High Street Boom Barriers Keon Parade Settlement Road Fl~hing Lights 30th October, 1975

12th February, 1977 2nd July, 1974

1

2 1

Heyington Avenue Manns Crossing Manns Crossing Manns Crossing Manns Crossing Paschke Crescent

Lalor Child's Road

OSTEOPATHY, CHIROPRACTIC AND NATUROPATHY REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS. (Question No. 2251)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Assistant Minister of Health, for the Minister of Health-

Following the tabling of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Osteopathy, Chiropractic and Naturopathy on 27th November, 1975, what action has been taken by the Govemment to carry out the recommendations made by the committee on X-rays?


The recommendations by the Joint Select Committee on Osteopathy, Chiropractic and Naturopathy are being considered by the Governme.nt in connection with the preparation of legislation to provide for a system of registration for chiropractors and some other practitioners.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR MELTON. (Question No. 2252)

Mr. JONES (Melbourne) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

In respect of the site preparation for traffic lights in High Street (Western Highway) Melton, whether this preparation is to be carried out by the-(a) Shire of Melton; or (b) Country Roads Board, indicating

2nd November, 1974 5th August, 1976 15th February, 1977

1 1

1 1

what effect, if any, preparation by the board will have on the date of installation of the lights?


The Shire of MeIton is carrying out minor roadworks at the intersections of Coburns Road and Station Street-O'Neills Road with the Western Highway, MeIton. The roadworks will not affect the date of installation of signals at the intersections.

TRANSPORT ACCIDENTS. (Question No. 2253)

Mr. JONES (Melboume) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

Further to the answer to question No. 1480 given on 27th April, 1977-

1. What estimated loading factor of numbers of people carried per million kilometres travelled by each vehicle should be applied in respect of-(a) private cars and station wago.ns; (b) buses; (c) passenger trains; (d) trams; (e) motor cycles; and (I) taxis?

2. What is the corrected figure of persons killed or injured per estimated million passenger kilometres, in contrast to million vehicle kilometres, for each transport mode?


1 and 2. Details are-

Average No. Persons killed per estimated Persons injured per estimated Transport mode of passengel'8 million passenger kilometres million passenger kilometres

carried 1974 197.s 1974 197.s

Cars and station wagons 2 0·011 0·012 0·281 0·264 Buses 13 0·00083 0·00042 0·017 0·032 Passenger trains 69 0·00043 0·001 0·002 Trams 23 0·002 0·056 0·029 Motor cycles 1·1 0·221 0·232 4·687 5·197 Taxis 2 0·002 0·176 0·167


ACCIDENTS AT GEELONG WEST INTERSECTION. (Question No. 2254)


How many vehicle accidents have been recorded in each of the past twelve months at the intersection of Church and Pakington streets, Geelong West?


Details of the number of reported accidents are--

Year

1915 1976

Fatal

Nil Nil

Injury

2

Property damage

2 Nil

Total

3 2

FACILITIES FOR HOUSING COMMISSION ESTATES.

(Question No. 2255)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Housing-

1. What plans there are to provide-(a) public telephones; (b) bus shelters; and (c) shopping facilities in the Corio North Housing Commission estate; and when it is expected that such facilities will be provided?

2. When it is expected that shopping facilities will be established in the Whittington housing estate?

Mr. HAYES (Minister of Housing): The answer is--

1. (a) The provision of public telephones is the responsibility of Telecom Australia;

(b) The prOvision of bus shelters is the responsibility of the municipality.

(c) Twelve months. 2. Nine months.

TABELLA BETTING. (Question No. 2256)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Youth, Soort and Recreation- -

What has been the cost of advertising and promotion of cc Tabella" betting to date?

Mr. DIXON (Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation): The answer is-

The Totalizator Agency Board has advised me that the advertising costs for the announcement of Tabella and the follow up

for the first three weeks of operation total approximately $23,000.

Approximately 75 per cent of this cost was devoted to educational-type material explaining to potential customers the range of bets available and how to place investments. Additionally, there were posters and handout information provided in branches and agencies.

This was supported by a programme of press releases, news stories, figures, feature articles and press, radio and television interviews, which received wide exposure at no cost to the board.

WATER SUPPLY TO LARA AREA. (Question No. 2257)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-

What are the proposed plans and expected timing for the updating of the water supply to the Lara area?


The water commission gave general approval on 24th August, 1976, to a proposal submitted by the Geelong Waterworks and Sewerage Trust, which administers the water supply to Lara, for the augmentation of supply to the township by the installation of a new 750-mm and 450-mm diameter supply main from Lovely Banks storage through to Lara.

The estimated cost of this work is $1'05 million and construction of stage I of the pipeline extending from Purnell Road, North Geelong to Lara township is well advanced.

Completion of stage I works by September, 1977, should significantly improve the water pressures in the Lara reticulation system during peak demand periods in the summer months.

PENSIONER MUNICIPAL RATE REBATES.

(Question No. 2258)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Public Works, for the Minister for Local Government-

How many pensioners in Victoria have(a) applied for; and (b) received municipal rate rebates in the past financial year?


Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Public Works): The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government-

All persons who were pensioners within the meaning of the Municipalities Assistance Act 1973, and who submitted valid applications to their councils during the current municipal financial year, or were ,treated by their councils as having made such applications on the basis of the receipt of valid applications in the previous year, as provided by section 298 (lAC) of the Local Government Act, would obtain remission of portion of the rates which they were liable to pay in respect of their sole or principal place of residence.

During the financial year ended 30th June, 1977, payments were made to municipalities for claims lodged for rates remitted under the Government scheme, in respect of-

102,793 pensioners who received assistance with their 1976-77 municipal rates; and

22,925 pensioners who received assistance with rates due in respect of previous years.

Further claims continue to be received as municipalities finalize applications in their offices.

BUS SERVICE FROM GEELONG RAILWAY STATION.

(Question No. 2259)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Transport-

Whether consideration is being given to providing a bus feeder service from the Geelong railway station to inner-city bus routes servicing suburban outlets; if so, when a decision will be made, indicating when such a service will commence; if not, whether consideration will be given to this matter?



Within the Geelong Regional Directorate the follOwing schools are listed for cyclic maintenance in the financial years as indicated-

School 1910 Anakie 932 Bannockburn

1845 Batesford 124 Corio TS Corio

4927 Corio South 5031 Corio West 4919 Fyans Park 1691 Fyansford 4768 Geelong Special 1889 Geelong North

HS Geelong North 4681 Herne Hill 1147 Inverleigh 4224 Manifold Heights 1887 Newtown 379 Shelford

Financial year 1980-81 1980-81 1980-81 1981-82 1981-82 1977-78 1977-78 1979-80 1980-81 1977-78 1977-78 1977-78 1980-81 1977-78 1977-78 1977-78 1978-79

Within this time-table there is still provision, subject to availability of funds, for schools to be brought forward if occasion (adverse climatic conditions, and so on) warrants. Other maintenance jobs of an urgent nature are effected as they occur or as soon as practicable depending on degree of urgency.

Primary School 3630, Balliang, is within the Ballarat regional directorate. Information from the region indicates that quotes will soon be received for the internal and external painting and repairs to this school. The work would also include repairs to the existing toilets. If satisfactory quotes are received this work is likely to be put in hand during the current financial year.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister Transport): The answer is-

of STREET LIGHTING FOR GEE LONG HIGHWAYS.

Yes. I am unable to forecast the timing of a decision on this matter at this stage, as this is one of many matters being considered by the Transport Regulation Board in the present review of bus operations in the Geelong area.

SCHOOLS IN GEELONG NORTH ELECTORATE.

(Question No. 2260)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Education-

1. What schools in the electoral district of Geelong North are approved for maintenance works?

2. When it is expected that such works will be commenced and completed?

(Question No. 2261)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy-

1. What improvements to street lighting are planned for highways in the Geelong area?

2. When it is expected that such lighting will be installed?


1. Street lighting installations are currently being constructed at Princes Highway West (Latrobe Terrace to Lunan Avenue) and Bellarine Highway (Ocean Grove intersection) .


The Country Roads Board has under consideration street lighting designs prepared by the commission for-

Princes Highway West (Lunan Avenue to MacKay Street)

Princes Highway West (Plantation Street intersection)

Midland Highway (Pakington Street to Church Street)

Midland Highway (Church Street to Thompsons Road)

Midland Highway (Thompsons Road to Analde Road)

2. The installation of street lighting for Princes Highway West (Latrobe Terrace to Lunan Avenue) is scheduled for completion in August, 1977. The lightin~ for the Bellarine Highway (Ocean Grove mtersection) is partly completed and further progress is dependent upon the completion of associated road construction works.

Progress on the other installations depends on receipt of advice from the Country Roads Board of the Street Lighting Committee's approval.

ARTS ACCESS. (Question No. 2262)


1. What representations have been made to the Government for assistance to the organization known as Arts Access?

2. What action has been taken to-(a) assess and evaluate the activities of the organization; and (b) assist the organization financially or in any other ways?


1. Written submissions from Arts Access and support from several members of Parliament.

2. (a) Interviews with the liaison officer of Arts Access. Consideration by Victorian Council of the Arts.

(b) No direct financial assistance. Indirect assistance through subsidized performing groups.

PAINTINGS IN QUEEN'S HALL. (Question No. 2264)


1. Whether the nine paintings currently hanging in Queen's Hall, Parliament House ( exclusive of the Fred McCubbin work undergoing restoration) belong to the National Gallery Collection?

2. Whether the paintings are regarded as of acceptable standard for exhibition in the National Gallery?

3. Whether the National Gallery will lend the Parliament a representative collection of works of the Heidelberg School and/or some works by eminent Victorian painters including Fred Williams, Sidney Nolan, Arthur Boyd, Roger Kemp and Clifton Pugh, for exhibition in Queen's Hall?


1. Seven of the paintings belong to the gallery.

2. The National Gallery paintings are of acceptable standard for exhibition and have been exhibited in the National Gallery of Victoria.

3. Paintings by artists of the Heidelberg School are constantly exhibited at the Gallery. They are not lent except on rare occasions and then only for short periods. Many of them are fragile and require climate control, a condition not satisfactorily met at Parliament House.

Some paintings by Williams and Pugh could be safely exhibited in Parliament House.

GEE LONG SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL BODIES.

(Question No. 2267)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation-

1. What applications for financial assistance are in hand from sporting and recreational bodies in the Geelong area?

2. When it is expected a decision will be given in relation to each such request?


The department is not presently considering any applications from sporting and recreational clubs for assistance from the Sports and Recreation Fund.

Due to the heavy demand upon the Sports and Recreation Fund, assistance is not provided to individual sporting or recreational clubs. Assistance for the development of the various sports and recreations is directed through the parent State-wide organization. Assistance by this department for the development of sporting and recreational facilities is made available through the respective municipal council':

)

However, the following applications have be~n received from youth organizations in the Geelong area-


Name of club Location Amount requested

$ Shire of Corio St. Thomas Youth Group Norlane 450

Salvation Army Youth Group Norlane 500 Bell Park Community Youth Group North Geelong 2,417 Pettitt Park Youth Centre Bell Post Hill 4,384 1st Norlane Scout Group Norlane 100

City of Geelong St. Mary's Senior Youth Group Geelong 368 East Geelong Community Youth Club Geelong 2,500 Geelong Community Adolescents Family Geelong 3,966

Centre The Salvation Army Youth Group Geelong 2,616 Y.M.C.A.-Geelong Geelong 45,800

City of Geelong West Geelong Christian Cadet Corps Geelong West 150 City of Newtown Geelong and District Y.W.C.A. Youth Newtown 11,612

Clubs Shire of South Barwon 1st Torquay Scout Group Torquay 1,979

Belmont Community Youth Club Belmont 875

TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR GEELONG INTERSECTIONS. (Question No. 2268)

. Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

1. What intersections in the Geelong urban area are presently-(a) approved; and (b) under consideration for the installation of traffic lights?

Intersection

Moorabool Street-McKillop Street BeIIarine Street-Malop Street Myers Street-Yarra Street ., Latrobe Terrace-Ryrie Street

Church Street-Pakington Street-Stubbs Avenue

2. What is the expected delay in each case before such lights are installed?


1. (a) Funds have been allocated for the installation of signals at the following intersections in the Geelong area as part of the Road Safety and Traffic Authority's 1977-78 works programme-

Municipality

City Of Geelong City of Geelong City of Geelong City of Geelong, City of

Geelong West, City of Newtown

Pakington Street West-Fyans Street .. .. . . . . Barrabool Road-Mount Pleasant Road-Roberts Road-Shannon A venue ..

City of Geelong West City of Newtown City of South Barwon

In each case, before installation commences, agreement must be reached between the Road Safety and Traffic Authority and the municipality concerned, and also the Country Roads Board in the case of the board's declared roads, as to the design of the signals and the completion of any necessary roadworks. Subject to such agreements, it is expected that signals will be installed at the above-named intersections by the middle of 1978.

In addition the installation of signals was completed recently at the intersection of the Bellarine Highway-Ormond Road and Boundary Road, Geelong and came into operation on 23rd August, 1977. The installation of signals has also commenced at the intersection of Gordon Street and Myers Street, Geelong. It is expected that the signals will be in operation by September, 1977.

1. (b) and 2. Approximately 75 requests for the installation of signals at intersections, under the State intersection control programme, including those intersections

mentioned above, were received by the Road Safety and Traffic AuthOrity from municipalities in the Geelong urban area. All such requests have been considered in the preparation of the State-wide ranking of sites for which there are proposals from municipalities to install signals. The ranked list has been limited to those intersections which are considered by the authority to represent the higher priority for treatment in the progressive implementation of the statcon programme. Based on current costs it is expected that 85 sets of intersection signals and 25 sets of pedestrian-operated signals will be installed throughout the State each year.

Details relating to intersections which have been approved as requiring treatment. and the priority accorded to each such intersection, are outlined in the Road Safety and Traffic Authority bulletin No. 7 of 1976. which was issued in October. 1976. The honorable member has been provided with a copy of the bulletin.


RAILWAY WORKS. (Question No. 2269)

Mr. TREZISE (Gee long North) asked the Minister of Transport-

Whether an assurance was given to the members for Geelong West and Geelon~ East in 1976 that the Geelong-Melboume raIl line would be fully duplicated in the 1975-76 year; if so, when such undertaking is now to be fulfilled?


The Government is committed to complete the duplication of the Geelong-Melboume rail line and on site work has already started on the duplication of the final section between Little River and Corio.

The honorable member will be aware that this is a major task that will take some three years to complete.

HOUSING COMMISSION HOMES AT CORIO AND WHITTINGTON.

(Question No. 2270)


1. How many applicants are presently on the waiting list to purchase Housing Commission homes at-Ca) Corio; and (b) Whittington?

2. What is the expected waiting time for applicants in each such area?

3. How many homes are expected to be built in the-Ca) Corio; and (b) Whittington estates, in the next twelve months?

4. How many homes have been com,leted for occupation in each estate over the past twelve months?


1. (a) Corio-S20. (b) Whittington-276. 2. Twenty-six months for Corio, 29

months for Whittington. 3. The commission does not yet know

the funds it will have available next financial year but anticipates that funds available will be sufficient to let at least 127 homes to contract in the Corio and Whittington estates.

4. (a) Corio-Sl homes. (b) Whittington-19 homes.

HOUSING COMMISSION HOMES IN GEELONG AREA.

(Question No. 2271)


I. What is the present approximate delay in undertaking maintenance repairs after complaints are lodged by tenants of Hous.ing Commission homes in the Geelong area?

2. What action, if any, is being taken to reduce such delay?


1. Ur~ent repairs are normally attended to withm 24 hours of notification.

Normal repairs are attended to within 21 days as stipulated under the conditions of the maintenance contracts.

Contracts for repairs of a major nature such as large scale refencing, reroofing and repainting are let on an annual basis, dependmg on the availability of the necessary funds.

2. Any delays are mainly due to unexpected difficulties such as the unavailability of a particular component, or the failure of a contractor to honour his contractural obligations. Every endeavour is made to rectify such delays.

CROWN LAND IN GEELONG. (Question No. 2273)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister of Lands-

What is the area of Crown land leased to the Cheetham Salt Works, Geelong, indicating the terms and period of such lease?

Mr. BORTIlWICK (Minister of Lands): The answer is-

The company's operations at Geelong are conducted on land vested in the Geelong Harbor Trust Commissioners.

BACCHUS MARSH ROAD, CORIO, MEDIAN STRIP. (Question No. 2274)


What consideration is being given to upgrading the condition of the median strip on Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio, between Cox Road and Purnell Road to provide lawn and trees of similar standard to the Melbourne Road, Corio?


The Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio, between Cox Road and Purnell Road is located within a 58· 22-metre reserve and com;ists of a single 7· 32-metre carriageway for through traffic with service roads on either side.

The Country Roads Board will consider the construction of dual carriageways for through traffic and the associated medjan development when warranted by traffic volumes. This is not expected for some years.

It would not be appropriate to plant lawns and trees in the future outer separators prior to the construction of. dual

Questions [6 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] on Notice. ,9249

carriageways because of the later removal and disturbance which would be necessary to cater for underground drainage and service alterations.

TOTALIZATOR AGENCY BOARD. (Question No. 2275)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation-

1. What was the annual turnover of the Totalizator Agency Board in the Geelong area in each of the past five years in respect of-(a) horse racing; (b) trotting; and (c) greyhound meetings?

2. What was the weekly turnover of "Tabella" betting in the Geelong area to iate?


I have been advised by the Totalizator Agency Board that the annual turnover in the Geelong area for the past five years is as follows-

J972 1973 1974 J975 J976

$ $ $ $ $ 7,488,896 8,765,576 9,736,648 J2,414,740 13,294,596

It is not possible to provide turnover figures separately for racing, trotting, greyhound and tabella investments, within any particular electorate, but the over-all split for racing, trotting and greyhounds for the past five years throughout the whole of Victoria is as follows-

1972 J973 1974 1975 1976

per per per per per cent cent cent cent cent

Racing .- 64'23 64'48 63'19 63'30 64·40 Trotting. _ 22'45 21-99 22'03 22'49 22·59 Greyhounds .. 13'32 13'53 14·78 14·21 13'01

Tabella investments will not come into account until the current year ends on 31st July, 1977.

HOUSING COMMISSION HOMES IN GEELONG AREA.

(Question No. 2276)


1. How many pensioners are at present on the waiting list for lone-person Housing Commission accommodation in the Geelong area?

2. What is the expected waiting period for such applicants?

3. What areas of undeveloped land are presently available for development of such accommodation in the Geel6ng ar-ea?

Sessron 1977.-320


1. Sixty-six.

2. Twenty-four months approximately, dependent on vacancies.

3. None.

DRUG OFFENDERS IN GEELONG AREA.

(Question No. 2277)

Mr. TREZISE (Gee long North) asked the Minister of Special Education' for the Chief Secretary-

How many persons have been charged with drug offences in the Geelong area in each of the past five years, indicating the respective age groups of such persons and the number convicted?


Details of drug offences in the Geelo.ng area are-

No. of persons Number Year- charged with convicted drug offences

1975 36 36 1976 45 44

• Information with respect to offences committed prior 1975 is not readily available.

The respective ages of the persons charged were-

Age

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Totals ..

Number charged 1975 1976

1 3 4 6 6 3 4 1 3

2

36

3 6

13 7 3 7 1 4

45


MELBOURNE~EELONG PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE.

(Question No. 2278) Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North)

asked the Minister of TransportHow many passenger trains have travelled

between Melbourne and Geelong over the past six months, indicating how many have

arrived late at their destination, the extent of delay and the reasons for late arrival?


The time-keeping details of passenger trains operating between Melbourne and Geelong for the six months from 1st November, 1976 to 30th April, 1977 are as follows-

Number of trains operating On time Five-ten

minutes late Over ten

minutes late

Melbourne-Geelong

Geelong-Melbourne

2,934

2,924

The late running of certain trains was due to a variety of reasons including industrial disputes, defective rolling-stock, signal and point failures and flood damage.

RESTRICTED FILMS AT DRIVE-IN THEATRES.

(Question No. 2279)


What restrictions apply to drive-in picture theatres in relation to the screening of restricted films which may be viewed from adjacent public roads?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister of Special Education) : The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

There are no restrictions applicable at present to the exhibition of "R" certificate films at drive-in theatres where the screen may be viewed from outside the precincts of the theatre. The matter was discussed in detail at two recent meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for censorship and methods of remedying the situation are being examined.

ADMISSION OF UNDER AGE PERSONS TO RESTRICTED FILMS.

(Question No. 2280)


How many theatre proprietors have been - (a) charged; and (b) convicted, in each of the past five years for admitting underage persons to restricted films?

1,781

1,953

850

776

303

195


Inquiries indicate that this information is not readily available.

TRAFFIC COUNTS IN GEELONG AREA.

(Question No. 2282)


What are the traffic counts in each of the past five years for vehicles travelling on the following roads-(a) Melbourne Road, North Geelong; (b) Thompson Street, North Geelong; (c) Station Street at the rail crossing, North Shore; (d) Purnell Road, Corio; (e) Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio; (f) Mercer Street, Geelong; and (g) Pakington Street-Church Street, Geelong West intersection?


The 24-hour daily traffic figures at the locations listed, taken over the past five years, are as set out below-

(a) Melbourne Road at Separation Street Bridge-

April 1972 January 1973 January 1974 January 1975 January 1976

21,400 28,230 26,800 29,250 31,200

(b) Thompsons Road, south of Victoria Street-

April 1972 March 1973 December 1974 August 1976

12,190 11,230 15,130 14,300


(c) Station Street at Railway Crossing-October 1973 5,040 May 1974 6,120 December 1975 8,420

(d) Purnell Road, east of Bacchus Marsh Road-

July 1973 3,190 September 1974 4,160 October 1975 4,830 October 1976 4,910

( e) Bacchus Marsh Road, south of Purnell Road-

January 1973 4,340 September 1974 5,210 October 1975 5,420 November 1976 6,000

(f) The only figures available for Mercer Street, Geelong, are as a result of twelve hour (7 a.m.-7 p.m.) traffic counts taken in 1974 and 1976. These results are set out below.

December 1974 July 1976

(g) Pakington Street, Street-

December 1972 August 1973 May 1974 November 1976

19,200 18,800

south of Church

11,400 11,010 11,180 10,550

ODOUR LEVEL IN NORLANECORIO AREAS.

(Question No. 2283)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Minister for Conservation-

1. What procedures are adopted to investigate odour complaints in the NorlaneCorio areas?

2. What are the main sources of odour affecting these residential areas?

3. How measurements of odour level are recorded and what are the latest recorded levels in the Norlane-Corio areas?

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

1. The procedure for the investigation of odour complaints by the Environment Protection Authority is essentially the same for all areas. The complainant is interviewed for specific information as to the type of odour, time of occurrence, duration and prevailing wind direction, among other details.

On the basis of this information and the investigating officer's knowledge of the area, an inspection of likely sources is carried out to detect unusual operating conditions or any plant malfunction which may have led to the release of odours.

2. On the basis of past complaints the sources of odours in the Norlane-Corio area have been Shell Refining (Australia) Pty. Ltd., M. C. Herd Pty. Ltd., Corio Meat Packaging Pty. Ltd., Australian Brake Supplies Pty. Ltd. and a domestic source relating to fibreglass odours.

3. Odour level may be determined by taking an air sample in a gas sampling bag and subjecting the contents to an evaluation by a selected odour panel using a method of dynamic dilution. This method measures the "strength" or "intensity" of an odour, it does not attempt to establish the .. nature" of an odour.

I am informed no odour measurements have been carried out in the Norlane-Corio area.

MILK. (Question No. 2284)

Mr. WHITING (Mildura) asked the Minister of Agriculture-

1. With reference to the Milk Board Inquiry into prices held from 13th to 20th December, 1976-(a) whether copies of the transcript of evidence were made available to all parties who gave evidence to the inquiry; and (b) what submissions were made to the board outside the dates referred to above?

2. In which areas of Victoria whole milk is supplied for retail sale at prices in excess of those announced on 9th February, 1977, indicating-( a) the names of processors who supply such milk; and (b) whether all such processors are authorized to charge higher rates; if not, what action is taken against unauthorized higher charges?

3. \Vhat retail price is charged for milk at Horsham, Genoa, Mallacoota, St. Arnaud and Charlton, respectively?

4. When deliveries are made to each of the above towns, and what is the age of the milk, as indicated by the carton date code when delivered to the retailer?

5. In view of the increasing demand for pasteurized (not homogenized) and bottled milk in many areas, whether bottled milk will again be available in country areas of Victoria to encourage increased sales in line with recent Milk Board advertising themes?

Mr. SMITH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer is-

1. (a) Copies of the transcript were made available to advocates for milk industry organizations who appeared at the inquiry. In the case of any witness, a copy


of that part of the transcript relating to his evidence was made available on request. A copy of the full transcript was available on request, for examination at the board's office.

(b) At the board's request, copies of submissions by industry organizations were lodged with the board prior to the commencement of the inquiry.

These were later formally submitted to the inquiry by advocates for these organizations and incorporated in the transcript of evidence. No other submissions were made to the board outside the dates referred to.

2. Retail prices determined by the Milk Board are observed in all areas under its jurisdiction, which embrace approximately 95 per cent of Victoria's population.

(a) Areas of State and names of processors located outside Milk Board districts where milk is sold retail at prices above those announced on 9th February, 1977, are-

North West District-Milk Processors Pty. Ltd., Ballarat.

Horsham Modern Dairy, Horsham. Maryborough Dairies Pty. Ltd., Maryborough. Sandhurst Dairies Ltd., Bendigo. Weir's Melrose Dairy, Mildura. Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd., Swan Hill.

Genoa

Mallacoota

St. Amaud

Charlton

4.

Horsham

Genoa

Mallacoota

St. Amaud

Charlton

Central Western District (Apollo Bay)L.S.T. (Colac) Dairy Processors Pty.

Ltd., Colac.

East Gippsland-Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd.,

Maffra.

South Gippsland (Wilson's Promontory)Murray Goulbum Co-operative Co. Ltd.,

Maffra.

(b) There is no fixed price for milk sold in areas not under Milk Board jurisdiction.

3. The retail prices charged for milk (in paper cartons) at Horsham from 11th February, 1977, are as follows-

Plain mnk 600 millilitres 1 litre

cents 22 36

2 litres (per 2-litre carton) 70

Flavoured milk cents 600 millilitres 30

In addition to the above prices, distributors may charge up to a maximum of 6 cents per delivery on home delivered milk.

The retail price charged for milk at Genoa, Mallacoota, St. Arnaud and Charlton which are outside Milk Board districts is-

Deliveries

daily

600 millilitres

25 cents

25 cents

25 cents

24 cents

every second day

every second day

every second day

every second day

1 litre

43 cents

43 cents

38 cents

40 cents

Age of milk by carton date code

one day

average two days

average two days

one day

one day


5. A number of types of milk containers are prescribed under the Milk Pasteurization Act 1958 for use in Victoria, and it is a matter for individual dairies to decide which type or types they will use. While some dairies provide their customers with a choice of containers, others may decide to supply milk in one type of container only. The Milk Board has no authority to direct a dairy to use any particular type of container.

CITY OF ARARAT WATER FUNDS. (Question No. 2285)

Mr. WHITING (Mildura) asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Water Supply-

1. Whether the Minister is aware that the City of Ararat has approximately $500,000 invested in its mains depreciation funds, as required under section 285 of the Water Act 1958, whilst their capital expenditure asset is only a little over $1 million?

2. Whether the Minister will give consideration to introducing amending legislation in respect of the Act to release some of the funds now required to be invested?

3. What were the audited amounts held in the mains depreciation fund, including interest, invested by the City of Ararat in each of the years commencing 30th September, 1972, to 30th September. 1976. inclusive, indicating the date of audit in each case?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation): The answer supplied by the' Minister of Water Supply is-

1. Yes. The Ararat City Council's water supply depreciation fund as at 30th September. 1976. stood at $490,759. The balance of the asset account capital expenditure at the same date was $1,201,379. The City has complied with section 285 of the Water Act 1958, by putting aside amounts annually to the depreciation fund and including interest earned on such investment.

2. The Waterworks Trusts Association of Victoria has had a sub-committee inquiring into the matter of depreciation funds operated by authorities throughout the State.

It is understood that a report with certain recommendations has been completed and that a deputation is being sought with the Minister of Water Supply to generally discuss the proposals.

3. The audited amounts held in the Ararat City Council's Ararat's mains water supply depreciation fund in each of the years since 30th September. 1972, and the date of audits are as follows-

Date Amount Date of audit

$

30th September, 1972 355,160 18th March, 1973

30th September, 1973 387,720 29th May, 1974

30th September, 1974 422,742 17th February, 1975



PLANS OF SUBDIVISION.

(Question No. 2287)

Mr. CAIN (Bundoora) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Attomey-General-

In respect of the examination and approval of plans of subdivision. whether, as from approximately mid-April. 1977. the Registrar of Titles has refused to pick up for examination any plan of subdivision lodged for approval which either-(a) does not have any "requirements" under section 569E of the Local Government Act 1958; or (b) has requirements. until after he has received notice from the council as to completion of these requirements; if so-(i) whether such action is thwarting the whole intent of section 569E and is a direct negation of the Government's stated aims of reducing the bureaucratic delays in planning and other controls which are adding to the cost of housing; and (ii) what steps the Attorney-General proposes taking in order to improve and resolve the current delays caused by this procedural change?


1. (a) Plans of subdivision not subject to a requirement under section 569E of the Local Government Act are (and have at all times been) picked up for examination in order of lodgment. On application setting out valid grounds. individual plans may be dealt with urgently.

(b) Because of pressures arising from increased lodgments. from about December. 1976. to May. 1977, a plan subject to a requirement was not in fact picked up for examination until notice had been received


that the requirement had been satisfied or withdrawn. On satisfaction or withdrawal of the requirement the plan was dealt with urgently-normally being approved within five working days.

2. The above practice has now been discontinued. As at 16th May, 80 plans were affected. These have now been dealt with and any delays arising from the practice have been eliminated.

SENTENCES FOR MURDER.

(Question No. 2288)

Mr. CAIN (Bundoora) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Attorney-General-

In view of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of R. v. Schultz (1976) V.R. 325, relating to the form of sentence following a murder conviction and the power of the Governor to commute sentences since the passing of the Crimes (Capital Offences) Act 1975 on 29th April, 1975-

1. How many persons have been convicted of murder?

2. In how many cases the sentence of life imprisonment has been commuted?

3. Whether the Governor has power to commute the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment; if not, what steps the Government is taking or proposing to take in order to remedy this situation?


1. Twenty-one. In two of these cases the convictions have been set aside and retrials ordered. In another two cases the convictions have been set aside on appeal and the persons involved have been convicted of manslaughter.

2. None.

3. The Governor cannot commute a sentence of imprisonment for the term of natural life. Provisions of the kind formerly contained in sections 496 and 497 of the Crimes Act do not now exist but His Excellency can effectively reduce such a sentence to a term of imprisonment for years by approving release from prison at the appropriate time.

TOTALIZATOR AGENCY BOARD. (Question No. 2289)

Mr. SIMPSON (Niddrie) asked the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation-

1. What was the annual turnover of the Totalizator Agency Board in the electoral district of Niddrie in each of the past five calendar years for-Ca) horse racing; (b) trotting; and (c) greyhound meetings?

2. What was the turnover of Cl Tabella" betting in the electoral district in the first week of operations?


I have been advised by the Totalizator Agency Board that the annual turnover in the electoral distriot of Niddrie in each of the past five years is as follows-

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

1,580,812 2,132,812 2,450,804 2,919,012 3,240,224

It is not possible to provide turnover figures separately for racing, trotting, greyhound and tabella investments within any particular eleotorate, but the overall split for racing, trotting and greyhounds for the past five years for the whole of Victoria is as follows-

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

per per per per per cent cent cent cent cent

Racing .. .. 64·23 64·48 63'19 63'30 64·40 Trotting .. .. 22'45 21'99 22'03 22'49 22·59 Greyhounds 13'32 13'53 14'78 14'21 1J·1O

PAYING PATRONS AT TROTTING MEETINGS.

(Question No. 2290)

Mr. SIMPSON (Niddrie) asked the Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation-

What was the number of paying patrons at trotting meetings at the Royal Agricultural Society's Showgrounds and Moonee Valley, respectively, including mid-week meetings, since 1st January, 1977, till 7th May, 1977, and what was the number of paying patrons at trotting meetings at the showgrounds during the same period in 1976?


The following figures have been supplied by the Trotting Control Board-

Moonee Valley Showgrounds Showgrounds

1977 Paid adult ·Children Total Total paid 1976 Paid adult Children·· Sub-total Dennis Club Total attendance attendance attendance nights

January 19,958 to

1 9,242 1,352 10,594 January 3 16,254 2,964 19,218 740 l:: 8 13,139 2,041 15,180 10 13,103 2,435 15,538 673 16,211 ~

15 12,625 17 13,316 2,288 15,604 1,048 16,652 S· 22 13,289 1,941 15,230 24 11,186 2,112 13,298 337 13,635 ~ 29 12,263 2,031 14,294 31 11,507 2,103 13,610 1,308 14,918

February 5 11,013 1,363 12,376 February 7 11,389 2,244 13,633 1,999 15,632 (Wednesday) 9 N.A. N.A. 8,359

12 11,712 1,813 13,525 14 10,722 1,927 12,649 1,790 14,439 ,....., 19 19,798 2,896 22,694 21 11,417 2,091 13,508 1,777 15,285 0)

(Wednesday) 23 6,305 408 6,713 Vl 26 8,444 1,472 9,916 28 11,373 2,077 13,450 2,097 15,547 t%1

March 2 5,864 378 6,242 ~ t-i (Wednesday) t%1

5 10,321 1,495 11,816 March 6 11,617 1,997 13,614 1,640 15,254 3: 12 9,785 1,307 11,092 13 11,303 1,943 13,246 2,210 15,456 tJ:I

t%1 19 10,544 1,559 12,103 20 8,879 1,251 10,130 2,007 12,137 !J 26 .. 10,832 27 10,800 1,808 12,608 2,011 14,619 April 2 8,496 1,050 9,546 April 3 10,134 1,505 11,639 1,853 13,492 -t.D 9 7,200 981 8,181 10 8,931 1,225 10,156 2,390 12,546 ....J

16 8,286 17 11,465 2,228 13,693 13,693 ....J 23 5,457 703 6,160 24 8,345 1,047 9,392 2,145 11,537 ~

30 8,232 1 7,775 1,888 9,663 1,961 11,624 May 7 7,607 852 8,459 May 8 6,972 822 7,794 2,154 9,948

170,479 23,642 202,480 39,975 206,488 35,955 242,443 30,140 272,583 C) ;s

~ -Notes.-· Children at Moonee Valley pay 40 cents •• Children are admitted free at the Showgrounds. ri' admission. N.A. Not Available. ~

Total-Royal Agricultural Society's Show- Dennis Club nights: No admission fee is Average attendance (less free passes) (19 grounds and Moonee Valley-242,455. paid direct to the Trotting Control Board, meetings) -14,346.

Average attendance (less free passes) (22 but is included in the fees paid by the Average paid attendance (including Dennis meetings)-ll,021. members to Dennis Catering and thus finally Club nights)-12,454.

Average attendance (less children)-9,566. to the board. 1.0 N Ut VI


TRAFFIC COUNTS ON SECTIONS OF CALDER HIGHWAY.

(Question No. 2291)

Mr. SIMPSON (Niddrie) asked the Minister of Transport-

1. Whether a traffic count has been conducted on the Calder Highway, at or near the intersection of Fosters Road, Keilor Park, and near the entrance to Brimbank Park; if so, what was that count and on what date the count was conducted?

2. Whether a traffic count has been conducted at the entrance gates to Brimbank

Park; if so, what was the count and when it was conducted?


1. A traffic count was conducted by the Country Roads Board on 14th September, 1976, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the inter· section of Fosters Road and Cemetery Road with the Calder Highway. The twelve-hour traffic figures are shown in the following diagram.

Fosters Road

1268 1304

It !I 9413 ~ ) 8316

Calder

10468 < ~ 9406 Highway

11 11 215 286

Cemetery Road

2. The board has not conducted a traffic count at the entrance gates to Brimbank Park.

OVERHEAD LIGHTING FOR CALDER HIGHWAY

INTERSECTION. (Question No. 2292)

Mr. SIMPSON (Niddrie) asked the Minister of Special Education, for the Chief Secretary-

Whether there are any plans to install overhead lighting at the intersection of the Calder Highway and Erebus Street, Keilor Park?


It is understood from inquiries made with the Ministry of Transport that the State Electricity Commission has installed, for the Country Roads Board, overhead street lighting at this intersection. The lighting was expected to be operational by 3rd June, 1977.

Iltgislutittt Cltnuutil. Wednesday, September 7, 1977.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry) took the chair at 2.32 p.m. and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Doutta Galla Province): My question is directed to the Leader of the House. During his term as Minister of Housing, did he specificaJly


direct the Housing Commission on or about 9th October, 1973, to investigate or inquire into Welmac land? If so, how did he become aware of the availability of the land, and why did he direct the commission to investigate that land as being suitable for acquisition?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The purchase of land in the Melton area was the last of three purchases that the commission was making on behalf of the Government to implement a policy that had already been approved by Cabinet.

As far as Melton land was concerned, because of my great knowledge of the Melton area and because until that time the Housing Commission had not built one house in the area, I undertook to look at various areas of land which as a parcel would equate approximately 1,000 acres.

At the same time the Housing Commission put together three packages of land equating approximately 1,000 acres. One was to the south of the Western Highway; another to the north of the Western Highway between what is now accepted as being West Melton and the creek which is towards Bacchus Marsh; and the third was on the Toolern Vale Road immediately north of Melton.

When I saw these three packages of land that had been put together I said that I considered that the commission should look at the north-west corner of Melton. Again because of my knowledge of the town, I considered that that land lent itself more to the type of social mix concept that we had than any of the three that the commission had already put before me.

My two main reasons for choosing the north-west corner were, firstly, I considered that with a concept of social mix, this area of land had views to the north-west that were quite magnificent. It looked out over the mounts of Bullengarook, Macedon and Blackwood and the Great Dividing Range generally. Secondly, I was already aware, because it had written to me, that Melton Shire Council was

not keen that the Housing Commission as such should establish a conventional Housing Commission estate in Melton.

When I say "conventional" I mean an estate such as had been the practice throughout the years by the Housing Commission to establish by building 100 houses in an estate. As Melton Shire Council had indicated its attitude, I considered that it was better to enter into a more secluded and quieter corner of Melton for this development. For those reasons I told the commission I believed that was the area where it should buy land.

The commission then showed me a parcel of land that was in the name of, I believe, Nandina, and I said that was the land that we should buy. That is the history of the land purchase in Melton.

The Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU (Doutta Galla Province): Further to the question I asked the Minister for Local Government yesterday and to his answer, can he give the House an assurance that he did not have any conversation with Mr. Peter John Leake, Mr. Colin George Cooke or Mr. Paul Day of Lewis Land Corporation Ltd. in the months immediately before 29th March, 1974, about the Melton land purchases, the Urban Land Council or the Development Areas Act?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): I had no conversation whatsoever with anyone of those three gentlemen about the Melton land purchases, which I did not know were proposed prior to 29th March. The Urban Land Council did not exist on that date. There were proposals by the Commonwealth for what were then known as land commissions and which were opposed in that form by the Victorian Government.

I spoke to many people about the reasons for the Victorian Government's opposition to the Federal Government's proposals and I could not possibly recall a full list of p.ersons to whom I spoke regarding our opposition to the form of the proposal.

9258 Questions [COUNCIL.] without Notice.

The Development Areas Act did not exist either. I believe it was first foreshadowed in the Government's election policies of 1973 and it was ultimately presented to Parliament in December, 1973.

POSTAL VOTING FACILITIES FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

The Hon. K. I. WRIGHT (North Western Province): My question directed to the Minister for Local Government concerns postal voting facilities for municipal elections. It will be known by many members of the House that there were some quite close results in the recent council elections and in one in the Shire of Mildura a vacant seat was won by Councillor Lance Fraser by 196 to 195 votes. At one stage it looked as though the Shire Secretary, Mr. Drew, would have to give a casting vote. There were two postal votes posted on the Thursday and received by the council on the following Monday. Under the Local Government Act these postal votes cannot be taken into consideration. Will the Minister consider an amendment to the legislation to permit these postal votes to be considered?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): The difficulty with the honorable member's proposal is that the postal voting regulations closely follow the regulations for the Commonwealth and the State and departures from the common form do create problems. However, I am able to say that my department is currently re-examining the whole ~uestion of postal voting and will no doubt tender its advice when its investigation is complete. I will certainly consider the suggestion made by the honorable member in the light of his comments.

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY MEMBERS.

The Hon. H. R. WARD (South Eastern Province) : My question relates to Country Fire Authority members and is directed to the Chief Secretary. Some time ago I received

representations regarding the necessity of disability compensation being paid to the families of Country Fire Authority members, particularly those involved as volunteers rather than the paid officers. Can the Chief Secretary advise whether any form of compensation or disability payment is available for the families of these volunteers?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary) : This matter has been raised with me on a number of occasions. At present certain problems are associated with this matter but they are being examined, and 1 hope to be able to make a statement on the matter during the present session of Parliament.

ST. ARNAUD POLICE HEADQUARTERS.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (North Western Province): Is the Chief Secretary aware of the pressure from the st. Arnaud area for the establishment of a section of the Criminal Investigation Branch in the new police headquarters that have been constructed there and which can serve the region around that headquarters? If he is aware of this, what action is being taken at present? Can the Minister indicate to the House whether a section of the Criminal Investigation Branch will be provided there and, if so, when?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): The St. Arnaud police station was a matter of controversy when it was opened. Because it was built with the intention of making it a regional centre to do the very thing that Mr. Dunn has referred to, there should be a section of the Criminal Investigation Branch in that area eventually.

It is a substantial building; honorable members should have no doubt about that. If they wonder why it is so large, the reason is because that was the intention. The proposal to set up a section of the Criminal Investigation Branch at St. Arnaud is under investigation at present by the new Chief Commissioner. Representations have

M inisteriai [7 SEPTEMBER, 1977.] Statement. 9259

already been made to me, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the future on the Criminal Investigation Branch at St. Arnaud.

BADAC REPORT. The Hon. B. F. STACEY (Chelsea

Province): The Minister for Local Government is aware that councils have in the past few days received the recommendations of the BADAC committee. In view of the fact that these are quite complicated recommendations and that the report may have been held up in themail.isit possible for the Minister to extend beyond the end of the month the period in which to comment?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government): I am prepared to give an extension of time, certainly, if delays have occurred as a result of the mail strike.

Perhaps I should comment that the document is a valuable one which proposes means of cutting through the red tape and delays that exist on building applications, cutting out the multiplicity of authorities each of whom has a separate say, and making the local council a one-stop shop, a proposal with which I believe all members would concur.

The report is currently under consideration by an officers' committee which will of course not finalize its deliberations until comments from the municipalities are received. If honorable members would like me to make copies available in the Papers Room for their perusal, I shall certainly arrange for that to be done.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. HOUSIN G COMMISSION LAND

PURCHASES.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): I move----

That this House take note of the Ministerial statement relating to Housing Commission land transactions.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province): On a point of order, Mr. President, I seek your ruling in this matter. The Government has appointed a board of

inquiry with certain powers under section 14 of the Evidence Act and the subject-matter of that inquiry is the subject-matter of the Ministerial statement relating to land purchases by the Government for Housing Commission purposes.

It is my submission that the supremacy of Parliament and not of the Government must be upheld. Therefore, no question of sub judice can be entertained; nor should the privileges of Parliament be transgressed.

Mr. President, if you rule that as the Government has referred the land purchases to a board of inquiry the sub judice rule applies and therefore Parliamentary discussion is stifled, the supremacy of Parliament will be overthrown. The supremacy of Parliament must never be in jeopardy but, on the contrary, the actions of government must always be the subject of scrutiny by Parliament. The right of a citizen to have every action of Parliament and government discussed and examined in Parliament must never be put in jeopardy.

The Government Gazette of Tuesday, 9th August, 1977, sets out the appointment of a board of inquiry into Housing Commission land purchases. Sir Gregory Gowans, Q.C., a former judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed a board of inquiry into and reporting upon all aspects of and matters arising from the land purchases of the Housing Commission at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton in the years 1973 and 1974, and the proposed development of the land so purchased, and in particular to report in each case----

(a) Whether any person was guilty of any impropriety, breach of law or duty, negligence or act of dishonesty in relation thereto;


( c) whether the valuation, or valuations, preceding the purchase was or were properly made and based;

(d) whether the price paid was fair and reasonable.

The Government must never be heard to say that it has appointed


a board of inquiry and therefore Parliament is powerless until the board completes its inquiry. The Opposition stands for the supremacy of Parliament and puts to you, Mr. President, that this is a matter on which you should rule that no action by the Executive arm of government should be allowed to interfere with the privileges of Parliament Or the right of Parliament to debate something which has been referred to a board of inquiry by the Executive.

In those circumstances, I submit sub judice belongs to the courts of justice and must never become a Government weapon to stifle the truth or debate in Parliament.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry) : I would not mislead anyone, Mr. Galbally, if I said that the point which you have raised has been foremost in my mind since the matter of the board of inquiry was first raised.

However, the House, by resolution passed yesterday, 6th September, agreed to waive any privilege in so far as members may attend if they so wish and give evidence before Sir Gregory Gowans sitting as a board of inquiry into Housing Commission land transactions.

No other question of privilege appears to impinge directly on the width or depth of the debate. The board of inquiry cannot be considered to be a judicial body; therefore the restrictions of the sub judice rule do not apply to this debate.

However, there is another aspect which occurs to me, and it is this: Presuming that honorable members are of the view that it is desirable in the public interest that this board of inquiry succeed in its appOinted task, honorable members could well consider the dangers to the likely success of the board which might ensue if the particular matters to be investigated by the board are canvassed in any detail in this debate.

The position is that the debate in this House of Parliament cannot be

restricted in a legal sense by the existence of the board of inquiry. However, consideration of the possible effect on the board's operations may well caution honorable members not to venture too far into the board's field of investigation. I believe that answers all the matters Mr. Galbally raised.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province): Yes, definitely, Mr. President.

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING (Melbourne Province): The Chief Secretary has moved-

That this House take note of the Ministerial statement relating to Housing Commission land transactions. At this stage I desire to move an amendment in these terms-

That the following words be added to the motion-

and arising out of the contents of the statement are of the opinion that the Minister for Local Government and the Chief Secretary deserve the strongest censure for their incapacity in administration when holding the portfolios of Minister for Planning and Minister of Housing, respectively.

The presentation in the House of that Ministerial statement last evening was something akin to the desperate protestations of a condemned man.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON: Condemned by you.

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING: No, by the public and every thinking person in this State.


THE PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): Order! If we are to get anywhere in this debate, I suggest we listen in silence to what opposing honorable members have to say and abide by the rules of the House relating to interjections, all of which are disorderly.

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: In any event, the Government presented a cheeky document in which it tried to set out a defence and disguise where Government incompetence and obstruction lay. It failed lamentably.


I want to discuss briefly the document itself and then to canvass some of the points and matters of principle which it raises. The statement proudly proclaimed on page 1-

We believe that home ownership makes better citizens, allows low-income families to participate in the economic wealth of this country. No Government in Australia has done more, or less, whichever way you want to take it, to ensure that low-income earners, or any earners for that matter, have less opportunity to move into their own homes today. That is a matter of concern to the Opposition. The obstructions raised by the Government to people taking advantage of anything to make it easier for them, and easier for members of the community, to purchase their own homes is a matter of public record.

Again on page 1 of the Ministerial statement concerning purchasing policies and the actions of the Housing Commission, much is made of decentralization being the highest priority of the Government. I am sure the Minister for State Development and Decentralization must have looked at the expressions in this document with wonderment! The Government's action entailed an examination and subsequent purchase of land in the areas of Melton, Sunbury, Kilmore and Pakenham.

Under the Government's Decentralized Industry Incentives Payments Act, to qualify for decentralization benefits an industry has to be located 80 kilometres from the General Post Office and there are also some special exemptions. However, none of the areas mentioned and none of the areas where land purchases were made came within the ambit of the special exemptions. To refer to decentralization was a feeble attempt by the Government to fool the public and this Parliament into believing that decentralization was a vital consideration in the purchase of the land under question. In no way did the purchases of land qualify under the term "decentralization" and I defy

the Government to attempt to justify that statement.

On page 2 of the Ministerial statement it is stated-

It was recognized that the key for decentralization was with industrial development in country towns and the necessary housing to cater for the needs of families who were either prepared to remain in a country town or move there from the metropolitan area where new job opportunities were created. It is claimed that was important, but unemployment in country areas of Victoria is higher than it is in metropolitan Melbourne. The Government has done very little to ease the unemployment problem.

There are factors in the economy today that might give the Government some excuse, but it is no excuse for the Government in defence of Housing Commission purchases to claim that that was a consideration in what it was doing. They and their colleagues have done everything to destroy the continuing rate of development of a magnificent decentralization programme at Wodonga. The scale of activity there has been so reduced that it is almost staggering to contemplate. What did the Government do to provide growth at Geelong? Geelong has one of the highest unemployment rates in Victoria. This is a tragedy, but to piously claim motives of that sort is hypocrisy at its worst.

One of the principal reasons given for the purchase of land by the commission in 1973 and 1974 was that it was desired to build houses in areas outside urban Melbourne, rather than in the metropolis. The Government purchased a lot of land but it has not built any houses on it. The Government began purchasing the land in early 1973, now it is late 1977. How sincere is the Government in its claim that all this tremendous activity of producing enormous profits was to provide houses for needy people in Victoria? These comments go on and on throughout this document.

The Minister talks about the land boom years of 1973-74 when the market was at its peak, and offers that as an excuse for the high price


paid for the land. However, as everyone knows, the Government was not interested in using Federal money available to it to set up a land commission in Victoria as was done in South Australia. In South Australia blocks of land, 6 or 7 miles from the General Post Office, cost between $10,000 and $12,000 less than in Sydney.

I move now to the subject of Ministerial responsibility, which is often referred to in this Chamber. If the Ministers in this House were sincere, their political experience should have made them aware of their Ministerial responsibilities. That does not simply mean doing their job as they see fit in the interests of a third party. It involves responsibility for the actions of their staff, and honesty in promoting the policies which they espouse in this House. In the searching pursuit of filling the pockets of friends of the Government with public money, nothing was secret, not even the Minister's planning policies, at which he appeared to be working so hard.

Honorable members are aware of an organization in the United States of America called the Mafia. The Mafia operates there through very respectable front organizations-well known business names. We have our own Mafia in Victoria. It is a " land" Mafia. The respectable front organization is the Government and Ministry of Victoria, and on the opposite side of the House sit two members of the board. Of course, the managing director, who signs the cheques, sits as Premier in another place.

The Hon. D. G. CROZIER: Who is the Godfather?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: I shall move to specifics. The Minister will have plenty of opportunity to reply and I will be most interested to hear his reply because when answering a question without notice which I asked yesterday, the Minister avoided the issue. I now refer to a diary note signed by Mr. Creighton, Property Control Manager of the Housing Commission, about a conference that was held at 179 Queen Street, Melbourne,

on 17th July, 1973. Those present were the Minister of HOUSing-at that time Mr. Dickie-the late Mr. Gaskin, then Director of Housing, Mr. Bohn, then Secretary of Housing, and Mr. Creighton. I shall now quote from this document.

The Hon. R. J. LONG: Which the Government provided to you.

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: Do not be frightened of it. It reads-

The Minister advised that he had called the meeting to confirm a direction given by Cabinet on Monday, 16th July, 1973, concerning the establishment of the commission as a land developing organization-It further reads-

The Minister stated that Cabinet had decided that large acreages of land would be purchased in Pakenham, Sun bury, Melton and Kilmore. The document has a sub-heading under "Planning ". The then Minister for Planning was the present Minister for Local Government, Mr. Hunt. Mr. Creighton was a meticulous man and kept careful records of all his dealings. Under this sub-heading the following appears-

The Minister intimated that the announcement of Governmental policy concerning land development by the commission and a change in policy with regard to planning of the metropolitan area in order to arrest the urban sprawl, would be made in midSeptember and that the statement on planning would also invite the abandonment of the concept of "corridor" growth in favour of satellite towns . . . The abandonment of the concept of corridor growth is what the Chief Secretary intimated, according to this precisely worded memorandum. The Minister advised that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government-that is Mr. Hunt-was enthusiastic about the proposal to abandon the concept of corridors for growth in Melbourne. I do not know whether the former Minister for Planning would deny it. Perhaps there should be a short adjournment to enable the two Ministers to discuss it. The memorandum further reads-

The Minister advised that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, was enthusiastic about the proposal and would arrange for the responsible planning authorities to arrange planning in accordance with the policy already outlined and


to enable the commission to immediately develop the land it is to purchase in each of the four towns. It does not need a clever mind to work out what is fairly precise and clear. The former Minister of Housing said that the former Minister for Planning was prepared to abandon the corridor growth. The honorable gentleman was enthusiastic about it and he changed planning to fit in with those arrangements. I have a copy of the document. Despite assertions of the former Minister of Housing about the former Minister for Planning, and the latter's support for the abandonment of corridor growth, in May, 1974, some twelve months later, the former Minister for Planning is on record in a Ministerial statement, which I have quoted before in this House, as saying-

There is no commitment for the release of any particular part of any particular corridor for regional development.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT: I said it in 1971, too.

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: The Minister said it in 1974, twelve months after the former Minister of Housing said that the honorable gentleman was enthusiastic about abandoning the whole corridor growth concept. One of the Ministers must be embarrassed! Perhaps the Minister for Local Government was enthusiastic about changing it, but twelve months later in his Ministerial statement he changed his mind again.

It is nothing new, when defending this censure against these two honorable gentlemen, for the Minister for Local Government to change his mind about planning.

In December last year when the honorable gentleman who took his place as Minister for Planning got a Cabinet decision to change planning policy to give Lensworth Finance a $9·5 million commission to sell land to T & G Insurance Group for $300,000 for development for 2,000 people, the two Ministers supported this. It is a matter of public record.

One of the departments under the Minister for Local Government is the Valuer-General's Department. As I

mentioned earlier, one imagines that Ministerial responsibility covers the Minister's department and the staff under his control. It has been suggested, and the Minister will have an opportunity to deny it, that members of the staff of the ValuerGeneral's Department were relocated for a period in the offices of the Housing Commission which was controlled by the former Minister of Housing. I do not know whether that explains some of the subsequent happenings, but again the Opposition will be happy to hear the response.

We shall have quite a lot to say about valuations. I wish to quote from a copy of a letter from the Valuer-General's office, signed by Mr. McRoy, qualified valuer to the Housing Commission, to the Property Control Manager re Delgrange Investments Pty. Ltd. land at Pakenham. The area of land in question was approximately 106 acres, but the really interesting point is that in regard to the valuation of this landI shall not go into a great deal of detail about this because a lot is already known-this letter states-

The most recent known sales in the area are those made to the commission and that of the subject property which was purchased for $3,100 per acre in June, 1973.

After giving due consideration. to the available evidence I value the subject property at $3,500 per acre, Sir.

The valuation was based on a sale some months earlier by the same body that was purchasing this land for the Housing Commission. Plenty of evidence was available from properties adjacent and in the immediate vicinity to enable the valuer. to determine what the correct valuatIOn should have been and to realize that this valuation was grossly inflated. Either the Minister did not know what was going on in one of his departments, the valuer was instructed by another Minister, or something was wrong with the system that allowed this to happen.

For the benefit of members of the Government party I point out that in today's press-the Age and the Sun


News-Pictorial-it is revealed that the valuation of land by the Local Government Department was 5·5 times greater than that of adjacent land which had been purchased just a few months earlier.

The Hon. HAnnoN STOREY: And what the valuer said was not comparable.

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING: How could the honorable gentleman ever be an Attorney-General with such an abysmal ignorance of what was said at the inquiry yesterday, and when he has the audacity to make that sort of comment?

The report in the Age about the land that was valued at less than that of the Housing Commission stated that the valuer said-

The land, of 256 acres was a bit of a backwater, and just does not appear quite so attractive. However, it is interesting to note that that land which was described as unattractive now has residential development upon it and that the other land has not been touched and has all sorts of problems in making it suitable for residential construction. The Attorney-General bleats in his corner. He should learn these things before making a fool of himself.

The Housing Commission seemed to have been involved in an exercise of assisting certain sections of the community who were involved in wheeling and dealing in land. Those people were not too fussy about details or about getting all the facts, so long as they could buy the land at inflated prices and thus ensure enormous profits for members of the Liberal Party and some of their friends.

I shall now quote from a letter on Housing Commission letterhead dated 30th October, 1973, from the Secretary of the Housing Commission to the Valuer-General, concerning 833 acres of land at Pakenham. The letter reads, inter alia-

It would appear that the present vendors would not be making a high profit in selling at $3,500 per acre when their expenses such as agent's commission, stamp duty, interest, legal fees etc. are taken into account.

You are therefore requested to furnish an up-to-date valuation of the land as soon as possible.

The Secretary of the Housing Commission had already stated that he did not think $3,500 an acre was a bad price. He asked for a valuation to be made as soon as possible.

The Hon. P. D. BLOCK: Is Mr. Trayling accusing the Valuer-General's Department of being corrupt?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: Mr. Block can reach his own conclusion.

Who instructed the Secretary of the Housing Commission to write such a letter? For the assistance of members of the Government party who are unaware or do not want to know about some of these matters, I point out what the Housing Commission, together with the Valuer-General's Department, was doing with public money.

I shall now refer to another purchase by the Housing Commission. In 1972 the Duncan family at Pakenham divided 1,044 acres of land into three different lots. In June, 1972, a Sydney investor by the name of Mr. Crichlow purchased 257 acres of the land at $800 an acre. Those 257 acres were the best part of the land in the three divisions. In January, 1973, six months later, the remaining land was offered to the Housing Commission. There is no record of the Housing Commission instructing anybody to look at the land at that time. It was just out of the blue that the firm Dillon and Inkster decided, "Here is a good cop. Let us offer the land to the Housing Commission. It will buy anything."

In March, 1973, Mr. Riach, the land purchasing officer of the Housing Commission, sought a valuation of the land. The valuation given was $2,800 an acre. This valuation was arrived at partly because a mysterious firm called Lomar Investments, supposedly from Sydney, had already made an offer for the land. At that time nobody was able or has been since to authenticate the existence of Lomar Investments. Perhaps it existed and perhaps it did not.


The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT: That was rural land, was it not?

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING: Yes, indeed. I do not know whether the Government can distinguish between land categorized as general farming land and land for residential purposes, whether it be in Koo-weerup, Kew or Carlton. In any event, the Housing Commission bought the land at $2,800 an acre.

It might be suggested that the enormous increase in price from $800 to $2,800 an acre in a few months occurred as a result of market trends at the time. With his knowledge of the area, would Mr. Block agree with that? Mr. Block must know something about the area, but he refuses to say anything about a proper market price.

The Hon. P. D. BLOCK: It is your speech, Mr. Trayling.

The Hon. I'. B. TRAYLING: About six months after the Housing Commission purchased that land, Mr. Crichlow, who bought the original 257 acres at $800 an acre, sold that land for $876 an acre. How can that be explained? Not even the Attorney-General, who now falls silent, can explain that, nor can Mr. Block who, I suppose, had some prior knowledge of the area. The best land, purchased at $800 an acre in December, 1972, is sold for $1,800 an acre six months after the Housing Commission has purchased adjacent land for $2,600 an acre.

The Minister for Local Government is responsible for those valuations. His department, the Local Government Department, is responsible for the production of that information to his colleague, the then Minister of Housing. If the Minister for Local Government was ignorant of what was happening, that is a sad thing to have to admit; if he was not, he should resign.

All honorable members know about the Pakenham land. They know that the engineer's report stated that the land was unsuitable for residential construction, and yet Mr. Dickie, the then Minister of Housing, said, "Go

ahead and purchase the land in all haste." That was the Minister's attitude to the engineer's report that disclosed that the land had enormous drainage and other problems which pointed against residential development.

I shall now refer to Sunbury and quote from a letter dated 13th August, 1973, from the former Director of Housing to the Premier. This letter refers to 1,000 acres of land at Sunbury under the control of Lensworth Finance Ltd. It reads in part-

It is considered that this land is most suitable for housing development and has been bought under offer at $3.400 per acre under certain terms. A valuation has been obtained from the Valuer-General's Department wherein it is considered the value of the land is $3,500 an acre. The present zoning of the 'area is "general farming" and will require rezoning. In terms of the valuation and differences in timing, there is no way in the world that general farming land would have been considered at a value of $3,500 an acre, but with prior knowledge that the land would be used by the Housing Commission some time in the future, a valuation of $3,500 was placed on the land. Therefore, the commission requested the Treasurer to approve of the purchase and, surprisingly, the honorable gentleman did. The land will require rezoning.

I refer to another document which is signed by Mr. O'Bree, a valuer--

The Hon. R. J. LONG: Who provided you with this document?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: The Government. In a letter to the Property Control Manager of the Housing Commission concerning the land at Sunbury, the valuer commences, "Pursuant to your instructions ". Who did this man work for? Was it the Minister for Local Government or the then Minister of Housing? That is the question that we seem to be unable to get information about. This land was situated at Lancefield and Sunbury and was zoned "general farming". The valuer goes on to say--


I have been informed that Lensworth Finance (Vie.) Pty. Ltd. renewed the option in December, 1972, for two years at $7,410 per hectare ($3,000 per acre) on a deposit of $247 per hectare ($100 per acre). Documentary evidence of the option has not been sighted.

Under a sub-heading "Sales Evidence" reference is made to cc knowledge of the option which is assumed to be bona fide ". Evidence of the option was never presented but there is great faith in the thrust of land dealings because an owner says he has been offered so much for the land, but still there is no evidence of that. Like the Pakenham land, where there is this nonexistent company known as Lomar Investments, probably some fictitious offer has been made and the option taken up because the vendors know that the Housing Commission will fall for anything and that the then Minister of Housing would accept anything. The valuer states-

Apart from knowledge of the option whieh is assumed to be "bona fide", the follOwing residential sales are considered.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT: It was bona fide, was it not?

The Hon. r. B. TRA YLING: This was general farming land and the Minister should know that different values apply.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (to the Hon. A. J. HUNT): The option was never checked.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT: You are complaining that the option holder got a profit.

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING: There is no point in the Minister trying to side-track on this issue because it is just not on. In the final paragraph under " Valuation" the valuer states-

In my opinion, a reasonable value of the land as at 30th July, 1973, taking into account all factors including the prior knowledge of the land being zoned to cc residential" is $3,500 per acre.

One of the remarkable aspects about this tragic series of events which robbed the public purse is that what seemed to happen was that an intermediary would suggest or fab-

ricate a price that he thought he wanted for the land but there was never any consistency between that price and related prices in the same area. That was the first step. Then the Housing Commission would be contacted, usually through the same real estate firm. Then, extraordinarily, the Housing Commission would get a valuation from the ValuerGeneral's Department which would be within $100 or so of the suggested price. A most interesting consistency in the cycle of events surrounded all these transactions.

I refer now to the land purchased at Melton. To make the matter clearer I have to read two minutes from the file, the first of which is one signed by Mr. Creighton, the Housing Commission officer in charge of property. This minute reads-

Acquisition of land at Melton-Housing Commission subject to Treasurer's consent, resolved that it proceed to acquire by compulsory acquisition two areas of land bounded generally as follows-Then follows a description of the two areas known as area 1 and area 2. That minute is signed by Mr. Creighton. On the following day, appears a minute from Mr. Riach, the land purchasing officer for the Housifl:g Commission, to Mr. Creighton. ThIS minute states-

The Minister has directed that we proceed to investigate area 2 mentioned in the minute with a view to compulsory acquisition, but that area 1 be d~srega~ded. In lieu of area 1, we are to InVestIgate the possibility of acquiring the eastern section of the property owned by Nandina Development, that is land lying east of Harkness Road. Nandina Development is a company which includes amongst its directors, a Mr. Colin Cooke and Mr. Peter John Leake. Before honorable members opposite get up in arms, I ask them to bear with Ine. Mr. Leake is president of the Mornington branch of the Liberal Party and was campaign manager for the Minister for Local Government in the 1973 elections. Yesterday, in this House, the Minister for Local Government conceded the possibility of Mr. Leake donating personally to his campaign as well as collecting money from others for his


campaign. There is nothing improper in anyone doing this for a Minister of his choice. Obviously, it is a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

The Minister for Local Government went on to say that he would not know the details of such donations. I find that strange. The honorable gentleman referred to party ethics. I am not suggesting impropriety in the donation, but I find it strange that the Minister would not be aware of some of the donations made to his campaign, because, from my experience in politics, a person is anxious to learn who is helping his party or him as an individual. Perhaps the Liberal Party has so much money that it is an embarrassment to it.

Mr. Leake led an organization known as "Friends of Alan Hunt" and there is nothing wrong with that either. Considering some of the problems facing .the Minister for Local Government on the Mornington Peninsula relating to members of his party, the Minister would need all the help he could get. There is nothing wrong with that; but if the Minister was ignorant of .the involvement of Messrs. Cooke and Leake in land dealings at that time when the honorable gentlemen was Minister for Planning, it is at least unfortunate that they did not inform the Minister of their association with land transactions or pending land transactions. If the Minister was aware of it, then it was a highly imprudent action because of a potential conflict of interests. In any case, this sort of situation should not be allowed to arise.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT: I think you have put that extremely fairly.

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING: The present Chief Secretary, when he was Minister of Housing, was prepared to direct the expenditure of millions of dollars of public money on buying land at grossly inflated prices, assisted by valuations given by staff supposedly under the direction of the Minister for Local Government. There is no way in which the Minister can escape the truth of that statement. but for what benefit? Millions

of dollars were paid out and a lot of this money went into the pockets of intermediaries, real estate agents, and so on. Of course, some of it went into the land, but still no house has been built on the land. There was incredible haste in buying this land and still it has not produced a house.

During the same period, the Chief Secretary, as Minister of Housing, was anxious to spend millions of dollars of public money on behalf of Victorians, but the honorable gentleman declined an offer of $20 million from the Federal Government to set up a land commission similar to the one .that has been established in South Australia and has been of great benefit to people in that State. I do not care which party is in power so long as the people benefit. In Adelaide, it is possible to get a block of land within 6 or 7 miles of the General Post Office for about $7,000 whereas in Melbourne similar land costs more than $20,000. Even farther out, land is priced at $17,000 or $18,000.

The Minister's extraordinary behaviour on behalf of Victorians during that period is worthy of the strongest censure for which the motion calls. It would have been a simple matter for the Minister to introduce a Bill in.to Parliament at that time, after the Government had decided to buy land in the four designated areas. In that area within two years one of the categories, rural land for residential development, had increased in value by 100 per cent. Even though terms of acquisition existed it was not necessary to acquire land because of the generous provisions of the index. This took place in approximately the middle of 1973, the same period which is under discussion here.

Such a system could have been created by the Government through this Parliament. When spending public money which is to be given back to the public in the form of desperately needed housing, there is absolutely no need to pay grossly inflated prices for land. The Government has a responsibility, as set out


in the recommendations of the ElseMitchell report, to put a stopper on grossly inflating land prices. To add fuel to the fire, as the Government did at that time, is not serving the interests of Victorians and certainly brings into question the credibility of the Ministers involved at the time, the Ministers to whom I have referred. I point out that by no means do I intend that the man who signed the cheques and gave final approval of all these matters, the Premier, should be let off the hook. He stands condemned with the others.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry): Order! Mr. Trayling has moved an addendum to the Chief Secretary's motion and from now on the debate will take into consideration both the motion and the addendum.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): I now rise to speak because I believe it is necessary for me to set out in great detail all the events which took place during the period when I was Minister of Housing. I should have preferred to wait until later in the debate because no doubt many more accusations will be directed at me by speakers on the Opposition side of the House and I should like to answer those accusations. However, as Minister responsible for housing at the time and having had the benefit of reading all the innuendoes and insinuations made against my colleague and myself during the past two months, in which we have been judged by the Opposition and by certain sections of the media and found guilty without any opportunity of defending ourselves, I feel I must speak out loud and clear at this first opportunity to recount the facts. Facts are magnificent, if people are prepared to accept them. Innuendo and insinuation are dreadful, particularly when there is no evidence to back them up.

For the interest of the Johnny-comelatelys, all of the matters raised over the past two months have been fully debated in this House on a number of occasions and on 6th March, 1973, I made a Ministerial statement, 22 pages in length, which covered

many of the matters which the House is debating today. However, there was one great difference; when that Ministerial statement was taken into consideration, as my Ministerial statement of yesterday is now being taken into consideration, I was taken to task by the members opposite for not doing the very things for which I am now being criticized for doing. I hope all honorable members will read the Ministerial statement of 1973.

Unfortunately, five years have elapsed and it is extremely difficult now for my colleague and me to recall the detail. When one is a Minister responsible for a department only a very small percentage of everything one says, of the consultations one has with various statutory authorities, of the discussions with the chairmen vested with the responsibility of administering those authorities, finds its way into official documents, although naturally much is recorded on file.

My colleague, the Minister for Local Government, and I are the men on trial because the terms of the addendum are--"and arising out of the contents of the statement are of the opinion that the Minister for Local Government and the Chief Secretary deserve the strongest censure for their incapacity in administration when holding the portfolios of Minister for Planning and Minister of Housing, respectively." It is almost impossible to create today, in a situation of economic depression, an understanding of the atmosphere that existed 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years ago, and attempt to argue a case explaining why certain actions were taken in the atmosphere which existed in those days. Hindsight is of remarkable benefit when examining the decisions of the past.

That is obvious if one considers the mining boom. How can one explain to young people today that only 5, 6 or 7 years ago people paid $280 a Poseidon share, when that company is not even listed on the Stock Exchange today? There are also the armchair generals who look back to the war years and give reasons why forces should never have landed at


Gallipoli, why forces should never have landed at Normandy and why different actions should have been taken at Singapore.

If the atmosphere of the land boom still existed it would be much simpler to explain the decisions that were taken in those days.

I became Minister of Housing at the time when the present Premier succeeded Sir Henry Bolte, on 22nd August, 1972. I was immediately made aware of a number of major policy matters decided by the Premier which were to receive the full support of Government departments. Two major policy matters were highlighted by the Premier; one related to the environment and conservation and the other related to decentralization. At that time I had held the portfolio of Minister for State Development and Decentralization for three years and I was a ware of many factors which could be instrumental in bringing about a successful decentralization programme. One of those factors was that in order to attract people to country towns where they could work in industry or commerce or carry on other rural pursuits, it was necessary to provide housing for them. Therefore, when I took over the portfolio of Minister of Housing I realized that I had an important part to play in the Government's decentralization programme and that if I could not provide housing in towns more than 50 miles from Melbourne our decentralization programme would fail.

I immediately called a meeting of the Housing Commission and informed the commission that we would now be working under new policies and that the Premier had instructed me that everything possible must be done to stop the growth of Greater Melbourne. Greater Melbourne is defined as the area from the General Post Office within the perimeter of the planning area of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The Premier had told me that the Housing Commission must not contribute further to the increasing population of the Greater Melbourne area

and that the Housing Commission was not to build any more high-rise flats for families or buy any more land for family units within that perimeter; it was to concentrate on building houses in towns more than 50 miles from Melbourne.

In assessing that policy it was obvious that, irrespective of the success of the decentralization programme, there would still be many people who desired to continue living in the greater metropolitan area, and many thousands of those families were on the Housing Commission's waiting list for accommodation throughout Victoria which at that time consisted of approximately 18,000 families.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY: It is still the same number.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: Yes, and it will continue to be the same number. It is good that it remains static.

Because we had been instructed that we were not to build any more high-rise flats or buy any more land for home units in the metropolitan area, it was necessary to examine immediately the alternative available to the Housing Commission. The first alternative was to move into the inner-coun try area in order to house those people who lived in Melbourne and wanted to continue to work in Melbourne. That meant examining areas close enough to the city to allow these people to commute daily, but outside the perimeter of Greater Melbourne. If the people involved were industrial workers, that involved towns to the east, west and north of our great city.

As Minister I had the responsibility of looking around to determine a dozen towns around the perimeter of Melbourne that would meet the basic requirements. I started in the east and decided that the towns of Cranbourne, Berwick and Pakenham should be considered; in the northeast, the north and the north-west Whittles ea and perhaps Healesville, Kilmore, Broadford, Sunbury, Gisborne and Kyneton; and in the west Baccus Marsh and Ballan. I think that accounts for twelve towns.


Having looked at those twelve towns the Government then thought about choosing one town in the east one in the north and one in the west which would be chosen specifically not at that stage as satellite towns, but for the Housing Commission to move in and buy a large acreage of land on which it could build houses to replace the money that had been spent in building family units in high" rIse flats and other developments in the metropolitan area.

Pakenham appeared to be the obyious town in the east. People living In that town could, if they worked in Dandenong and Frankston areas commute daily in half an hour 0; th,ree-quarters of an hour compared With more than an hour in the morning and well over an hour in the evening from the central residential suburbs on overcrowded freeways ~nd public transport to the outer perImeter of Dandenong and Frankston 12, 15 or 20 miles away. Pakenham was the natural selection.

I then looked to the north and thought that perhaps Kilmore could meet our needs in that direction but it appeared to be a little too far away. We had already been alerted to the fact that the Shire of Bulla believed that Sunbury lent itself to de .. velopment as a satellite town. An architectural seminar had been held in Sunbury about that time at which proposals were put forward that a dormitory or satellite town should be built somewhere near Melbourne and that Sunbury lent itself to that type of development. Proposals were presented to that seminar showing Sunb~ry subdivided to a distance of many mdes from the centre and indicating a probable population increase. Sunb~ry was naturally very much in the minds of people at that time as becoming a satellite town, so the Housing Commission interested itself in the area.

In respect to the west, as Minister for State Development in 1964 I had been a guest of the Melton Shire Council. That council asked what I could do to bring about the


development of Melton and how its population could be increased. In 1964 the population of Melton was 2,500. At that time, as Minister for State Development, I was aware of the needs of people who would be prepared to live in nearby country towns and the need for more people to move out of Melbourne, live in these towns but still commute into the big cities. In 1964 I said that the future of Melton was not that of an industrial town but that one day it should become a dormitory or satellite town.

Shortly thereafter the Savoy Corporation moved into Melton appreciating as it did that in the east of Melbourne the population was being compacted into the Dandenong area and on the Mornington Peninsula the build-up of population was making it almost impossible to commute into the city under one and a half hours on the Princes Highway. Twenty years ago Dandenong was an isolated town known for its market. It was now found to be a big city in the metropolis and people were going out to Hallam, a distance of 25 miles. It was obvious to developers at that time that the movement would be to the west.

On many occasions I made the statement in my township of Bacchus Marsh that by the turn of the century there would be quarter of a million people living in the rectangle of Bacchus Marsh, Melton, Sunbury and Gisborne because that was the only direction in which the population could go. Mr. Knight is nodding his head in agreement. One did not have to have outstanding foresight because the developers were starting to move out into those areas.

The Savoy Corporation first came to Melton, and then in 1964 or 1965 Cambridge Credits indicated an interest in moving into MeIton and creating a new town called West Melton. It also indicated that it was prepared to provide not only housing but additional facilities and community facilities without any Government assistance. West Melton was

Ministerial [7 SEPTEMBE~ 1977J Statement. 9271

developed by Cambridge Credits, and the population of Melton increased from 2,500 people in 1964 to approximately 14,000 people in 1974. There was a population boom. Melton grew more rapidly than any other municipality in Victoria without any Government assistance.

It was obvious to all land developers that Melton would continue to grow, but during those years the Government had no intention of moving into Melton as a Housing Commission area because there was no one on the waiting list for Housing Commission homes in that town. But the private developer had moved in, so I discussed the matter with the late chairman and other members of the Housing Commission and we decided that Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton were to be three places where the commission would do exactly as it had done since it was formed in 1938, namely, move in its own right and buy land, develop it and build houses on it for people who were within the means test.

Another factor emerged then, and emerged strongly. Overseas-London would have been the first place because London was almost completely destroyed in the great war. When London was rebuilt--

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Which war -1666?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: There are Johnny-come-Iatelys who make silly remarks and who do not know that there was a great war in 1939-45.

When London was destroyed the residential areas were not rebuilt. The British Government moved out into new towns to do exactly the same thing that we are contemplating in Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton. It built residential towns with all of the community facilities and some light industry, not heavy industry, for those who did not want to commute, but close enough to London to permit people to commute daily into the city. There are about half a dozen such towns around London. I had had the opportunity, prior to becoming Minister of Housing, of having been in London on three occasions

interesting myself in these new towns and observing the way they were developing. I know that many members of both Houses of this Parliament have visited these towns.

Stevenage outside London was the first town to be developed. It is developed on the basis of social mix. One develops an area of, say, 1,000 acres in such a way that the Government or Government authorities use a percentage of that area to provide housing for those who only want to rent a house and have an income which permits them only to rent a house. The Government develops in that estate blocks which can be sold to middle-income earners. The definition of the middle-income earner is a person who is ineligible to receive Housing Commission assistance or to become a member of a co-operative housing society. Honorable members are aware that there is a means test for both.

The third ingredient in the social mix estate to which I referred in Stevenage was the joint venture between Government and private enterprise to do their part. Throughout the whole estate one did not haveas in our situation-one-third for Housing Commission, one-third for blocks of land to be sold to middleincome earners and one-third for private developers. The idea of social mix was to merge the lot.

One also made certain-this is very important-to develop the area in such a way that maximum recreation facilities were provided for the people living in the new t~wn. V{~~n I" say "maximum recreatIon facIlItIes , It is interesting when one visits Steven· age and another town called Milton Keynes, between Birmingham and London, to find that the area was so flat that they created their own hills and valleys and a river flowing through them for water sport and recreation.

If one wishes to see a most magnificent town that has been created one should go to Columbia Basin in Washington, United States of America. There one will see the perfect social-mix recreation facilities of


lakes, waterways, hills and so on. This is what we contemplate for Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton.

The Housing Commission had to introduce a new scheme if it was to move away, in a major development, from the image it had unfortunately drawn to itself over the years of an organization which built only estates, which might be regarded as some sort of depressed areas within towns. I direct attention to the Wendouree estate outside Ballarat where there are 400 or 500 houses. There was great difficulty in interesting anyone in buying the houses there. The same situation applied at Kangaroo Flat outside Bendigo and in many other towns.

So the policy we decided to apply was one of buying large estates of 1,000 acres or more because such acreages were necessary to create this concept of social mix. We wanted a mixture of people including those on middle incomes buying blocks of land, and private developers building houses and selling houses and land together for as many thousands of dollars as one would wish. That was the design in moving into these areas.

The money was due to the commission under the normal Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement arrangements. We had been told that we were not to build any more houses in the Greater Melbourne area so there was a need to begin developing these estates as quickly as possible. I particularly want honorable members to realize that our initial purchases in these areas were purely purchases by the Housing Commission of areas of 1,000 acres and more to set up the social-mix concept.

It should be remembered that Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton were small country towns. When parcels of land of 1,000 acres or more are bought in any small country town, whether it is in any of these three, any of the other nine I mentioned, or anywhere else in Victoria, it cannot be obtained as land reserved for living and residential purposes. These towns are just not big enough for


the planning schemes of the towns to encompass areas as large as 1,000 acres to be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the Housing Commission realized that in these places it would have to buy land outside the normal town planning zoning areas.

Before the commission moved to purchase 1,000 acres at Pakenham it had already decided that it would increase the number of houses there and would therefore require more land. It had already chosen portion of the Duncan property as the natural area to buy. But, as I understand the position, the Duncan family said that it did not want to sell any part of its holding. The Duncans said that if the commission was interested in buying the whole of the property they might sell, but they did not want to sell part of it.

So, in its normal land-buying operations, the commission had already considered Pakenham and chosen the particular area of Duncan land which was closer to the centre of the town. However, at that time. it was not able to buy part of the land unless it was prepared to buy the lot. Therefore, when the policy of buying parcels of land of 1,000 acres or more was adopted and it was decided to buy land at Pakenham, it was natural that the commission would immediately turn to the Duncan land because, as I have said. it had already indicated its desire to purchase part of it. That comprised about 760 or 770 acres. To make up the parcel to as near as possible to 1,000 acres the commission bought three small holdings, one of about 23 acres, one of about 30 acres, and one of about 110 acres.

I will not delve any further into this except to say that when rural land comprising 1,000 acres or so is bought, no one can buy-I defy anyone to do so-such an area anywhere without some part of it not being subject, as broad acres, to flooding. That is what the game is all about in relation to engineering requirements and in making certain that proper drainage is installed.


We were criticized most particularly by one section of the press which first introduced the idea that we had bought flood-prone land at Pakenham. But the Town and Country Planning Board reported on the whole area, showing the commission land as part of the land from Pakenham through to Westernport Bay. Of the 980-odd acres that the commission bought, only about 20 acres within a short distance of Toomuc Creek was shown as not being capable of being developed for residential purposes. That report showed that 960 of the 980 acres bought in that area was suitable residential land.

We then moved into Sunbury. As I pointed out earlier, we were aware that the area of land which we bought above Jacksons Creek had been defined in the seminar held twelve months previously as being the best residential land in Sunbury if Sunbury was developed as a satellite town. There it was, shown on that plan as being prime residential land. Certainly it was zoned as rural land and certainly it was shown as being general farming land. But we must realize that the Bulla Shire Council, and particularly the Shire Engineer, Mr. McKerrow, believed that Sunbury lent itself to becoming a satellite town. They intended to lodge an appeal against the plan proposed by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. They wanted the area to be brought into the general residential zone.

How foolish we would have been to have looked elsewhere for 1,000 acres of good residential land, when the particular area was shown on the plan, which I can recall now being displayed on the wall of the council chamber of the Shire of Bulla, as being prime residential land. That is why we bought the Sunbury land.

Then we moved to Melton and, in answer to a question today, I gave the history of the purchase of land there. I have nothing to hide. I have told that story and I will tell it every time as it happened. Mr.Ben

Hills of the "Insight" team of the Age, came to me in 1973 when that team was first alerted to the very same suggestion we are raking over again today. The matter had already been the subject of adjournment motions and Ministerial statements in this House. It had been debated, talked about, and raked over. When Mr. Hills came to see me to obtain information on the purchase of land I told him what I am telling honorable members. Members of the Labor Party should read the article in the Age; certainly they must have it.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: You said it stuck out like a boil on your nose.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: It would stick out a lot further if it was a boil on Mr. White's nose. If members of the Labor Party read that article they would realize that I said, " Mr. Hills, do not look for any niggers in the woodpile. I was responsible for the purchase of the land in Melton." I said that in my answers to questions. I will tell the story again.

I live 7 miles away from this land. I have lived in Bacchus Marsh all my life. I walked the Melton area when Mel ton was a township of a couple of hundred people. I know the area like the boil on Mr. White's nose. I know the country closely and well. I felt I had a contribution to make in selecting the area of land to be purchased in Melton.

I looked at all the alternatives and at the parcels of land which had been suggested by the properties division of the Housing Commission but I still said, "No, I think you are doing the wrong thing. The area you should move to is in the north-east corner. The parcel of land of 1,000 acres-plus in that area would be perfect for our concept of development with a social mix." The area of land was purchased on my instructions and I do not give any responsibility to anyone else. As Minister of Housing, I made the decision to buy that land and I stand by it.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: At that price?


The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: No. I had no responsibility as Minister of Housing for the price that we paid for land that was selected.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Who was responsible?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: The Valuer-General is the only person who is able to give a guide. If his valuation is less than the price that we negotiate, it is Government policy that we must not proceed with the purchase, that we must abide by the valuation of the Valuer-General. We had no alternative but to use his valuation and we had not given him any instructions. If we gave him instructions, he had every right to make a criticism to his own Minister and to Parliament. The ValuerGeneral is independent.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Who instructed him?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: Nobody instructed him.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: You approved the price!

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: Of course we approved the price!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. M. Campbell): The Chief Secretary has the call. From the number of interjections which Mr. White is making, it would appear that it was he who had the call. 1 ask him to refrain from continually interjecting.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: I take full responsibility for the purchase and for the site in Melton that was selected, and I stand by that. I swear on God's oath that I was unaware of the name of any person that was associated with that land. I made the choice, not another person.

I consulted with the late Jack Gaskin, and unfortunately he is not here to verify my story, but I must defend Jack Gaskin. He consulted me; we talked about parcels of land and we both decided that the Nandina land-that was the only name by which I knew it then-was the site that we would purchase. I told Jack Gaskin to buy that land, and it was

only after 1 made the decision that I became aware of the complications with Welmac Pty. Ltd., Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd. and others. I had been completely unaware of that. All 1 was interested to do in Melton, Sunbury and Pakenham was to buy 1,000 acres of land or more to undertake the concept of social mix.

There is agreat deal that one could say about the whole matter. The Government received full approba~ion in the newspapers for its policies ln 1973. Certainly, as Mr. White said -I think I heard him interjecting above and below my voice-we have not built any houses on this land. Neither has Mr. Johnson, the Federal Minister for Housing in the Whitlam Government, nor the Federal Government built any houses on the 326 acres of land they bought at Craigieburn. Neither has the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation built as many houses on its land as it would have liked to build.

Mr. Trayling criticized me because -and 1 make no secret about it-I spoke out strongly against the concept of land commitments in Victoria. The Whitlam Federal Government came into office in 1972, and on 18th January. 1973, Mr. Johnson made his now famous statement on what was to be a take-over by the Australian Government of all housing built in Australia from Government funds. The Housing Commission was to become an instrumentality of the Federal Government and home ownership was to cease.

For the benefit of those who were not around at that time 1 shall read four striking statements made by Mr. Johnson. The first was contained in a press release headed" New Housing Agreement to be Negotiated". On 18th January, 1973, Mr. Johnson stated, inter alia-

The agreement would replace the present system of virtually unconditional grants with a scheme whereby Commonwealth financial aid would be given subject to a number of clearly defined conditions. Until that time the Victorian Government had been autonomous in the way it could spend money given to it


under the successive CommonwealthState Housing Agreements. For the first time the Whitlam Government issued an ultimatum to the States that no longer could they spend their money as they had in the past, and that the Commonwealth Government would make the decisions. Then Mr. Johnson said-and this is magnificent-

The existing agreement places far too much emphasis on home ownership to the disadvantage of the more needy lower income families . . .

As honorable members know the policy of the Bolte Government when it came to power in 1955 was that houses would be sold to all applicants who desired to buy them.

The Housing Commission has done a magnificent job; I wish somebody would give it more praise because it is always being criticized. The commission has built and had built more than 84,000 home units, of which it has sold nearly 45,000-over half-to people who must undertake a means test.

Mr. Johnson's other famous statement was-

I also propose that the sale of new homes built by the State housing authority after 30th June, 1973 be severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited.

That was the policy of the Whitlam Government when it came into power. The 1973 election was fought on the policy of home ownership, and the Liberal Party won it hands down and killed the other side, which had relied on Mr. Johnson's proposals of cutting out home ownership.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: You are our greatest asset; we are on the way now.

The Hon V. O. DICKIE: If I am the Labor Party's greatest asset, one of these days I shall tell Mr. White wha t an asset he is to us. I hope he keeps going up to Ballarat, the area which I represent.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: I go there more often than the Chief Secretary does. He only goes there for the races.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. M. Campbell): Order! Regrettably, I must refer to both the Chief Secretary and Mr. White. Each of them is trying to provoke the other. In the interest of this House, both gentlemen should return to normal debating procedure.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: I have dealt with the Federal Minister for Housing during the term of the Whitlam Government, Mr. Johnson, and I shall now deal with the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr. Uren. At approximately the same time in 1973-

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING (Melbourne West Province): On a point of order, during my speech I was careful, in accordance with the customs of this House, to make only fleeting reference to matters relating to the Commonwealth Government. The Chief Secretary is extending that fleeting reference, which you, Mr. Deputy President, on a number of occasions have warned honorable members against doing.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Chief Secretary): On the point of order, it is imperative that the House should be acquainted with the situation that applied during the year now being debated, when the Commonwealth Government indicated its intention to move entirely into the housing and land system in Victoria.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (the Hon W. M. Campbell): What Mr. Trayling said is perfectly true, but in the past when comments like that have been made it was only after an honorable member had read extensively from documents.

As the Chief Secretary said, he is quoting only three or four phrases from the document in his hand. Therefore I find no point of order.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: In referring to Mr. Uren, the former Federal Minister for Urban and Regional Development, I want to say only how vital it was that the Victorian Government opposed the land policies that the Whitlam Government intended to


implement in Victoria. Although the Whitlam Federal Government intended to establish land commissions in Victoria, honorable members must always realize that houses cannot be built unless land is bought.

The Housing Commission should have had its correct title-and I was almost at the stage of introducing an amendment when I was Minister of Housing to change the commission's title to the Housing and Land Commission-because it had to be a land commission to enable it to build the number of houses it was building.

It must also be remembered that the Federal Government has no powers over land in Victoria other than that which is required specifically for Commonwealth Government purposes. These purposes include defence. The Royal Australian Air Force has land for this purpose at Point Cook; there is a naval base at Flinders; the Army has land at Watsonia and Puckapunyal; land is set aside for quarantine purposes at Point Nepean and Portsea. Land is also reserved for meteorological purposes, and at Tullamarine airport for civil aviation purposes. All remaining land, other than that held privately, is vested in the Crown; the Commonwealth Government has no control over it.

The one thing that the Whitlam Federal Government wanted to get control of was land other than that reserved for defence purposes. Therefore it used this concept of land commissions, and held out a carrot by making $25 million available to Victoria for the purchase, not the development, of land, provided that land commissions were established.

It is interesting to note at page 29 of the second annual report of the Department of Urban and Regional Development that the intentions of the Australian Government are set out. One paragraph states-

The Australian Government has proposed that each of the States establish a land commission, or its equivalent, to acquire large tracts of land needed for future


urban development... initially concentrating on the fringes of existing cities. They would be engaged primarily in assembling land . . . It is envisaged that the publicly acquired land will be developed largely by private developers.

The commissions or their equivalents would receive financial assistance from the Australian Government to acquire land. Before providing this assistance, the Government has sought agreements with the States on how these bodies would operate. It has been proposed that each State body should have at least one nominee of the Australian Government. That means that the $25 million would be available provided that a nominee of the Australian Government could sit on the land commission and control how it expended money. After each State had set up a land commission, an urban land council or its equivalent, Mr. Uren would then set up an Australian land authority centred in Canberra which would allocate funds for the purchase of land for housing under the various departments, but on its terms. That was the access that the Commonwealth Government was going to have into the States to get control of land which it did not have previously.

Therefore I said this, and stand by it: "Yes, we want Mr. Uren's $25 million, but the price of land is not reduced by purchasing more land. One can obtain 4 to 4! blocks an acre."

Under the old measurement of 7 ,000 square feet a private subdivider could get six blocks to an acre of land, but now, with proper planning and recreational space, from 4 to 4! houses an acre can be built. Therefore if the total of three land purchases, amounting to 3,200 acres, is multiplied by 4!, it gives a figure of about 13,000 blocks of land.

If one divides $10 million by 13:000, one reaches a figure of about $670 per block. If twice the price is paid, then the land ingredient is about $1,300 or $1,400. That is still a low price or contribution to the price of the block of land.

The killer, as all honorable members will be aware, is the amount needed today to obtain water, sewerage, drainage, electricity and all the


other services that are necessary for a block of land. That is why young married couples today are paying $15,000, $16,000 and $17,000 for a block of land.

When the Housing Commission moved into Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton it used its own funds. It did so because the great need was for the middle-income earner who was not eligible for help from the Housing Commission or co-operative housing. All the pressure was for Governments to assist the middle-income earner.

In the three land buys the Government had supposedly squandered $10·5 million. Honorable members are aware of the story of the $10·5 million which was a fund accumulated in the Housing Commission as a result of its house sales policy over which the commission had complete control. Until Mr. Johnson rewrote the 1973 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, all other moneys from the previous three housing agreements, which had been used to build houses for rental, and which in turn had been sold, were repayable over 53 years to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the State Housing Commission had that money available to use as it wished.

At the time the $10'5 million was used to buy this land, because one-third of the land was to be developed to sell blocks of land at cost, plus the servicing, plus a 5 per cent margin of profit to the State. At that time blocks of land were selling for approximately $10,000 and it was hoped that these blocks would go on to the market for about $5,000. I pleaded with Mr. Uren to allocate $25 million to help in developing this land because the money was available to buy it. If we had not used our own $10'5 million and if we had accepted Mr. Uren's $25 million for land purchases, I am certain half of that $10·5 million would still have been used to buy Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton land. However, we employed good business acumen and used our own money. I wanted Mr. Uren's $25 million to help in developing those

blocks of land. If that money had been provided the land would have been on the market for two years. Again this is using hindsight.

I give Mr. Johnson full credit because in the year 1974-75 he said that the State would be given whatever money it was able to spend in any financial year in building houses. Therefore, early in 1974 we sought $58· 565 million for welfare housing, exclusive of co-operative housing money. Initially Mr. Johnson gave us $43 million of the $58 million we applied for. We said that we would quickly get rid of that. He said to do so and he would give us more money. That was in June, 1974. In October, 1974, he gave us an extra grant of $6·8 million. In February, 1975, he provided another $12 million. He said that if we kept building houses the money would continue to be provided. I said, " This is marvellous."

I visited country towns and said that no longer would the Government be announcing that ten houses would be built here, two in Mildura, and so on. I said, "We will now find a builder who is prepared to keep on building in all country towns." I had selected 26 country towns and it was intended to have a continuing building programme in every area, provided that the commission bought land in all these places. I gave the instruction to the commission to buy and reserve in all these towns land that would last for at least ten years because it appeared that at long last we were under way. Canberra had accepted that provided that the State proved that it would spend the money the funds would be made available.

Th~refore, in 1974-75 we sought $58 million and we received $62 million. When we had to make our application for 1975-76 I applied for $125·252 million which was exactly double the amount Mr. J ohnson had provided the previous year. He had indicate~ that he would be prepared to consider a figure provided that we could show that we could spend it. We applied for $125 million because


we wanted part of the money that was necessary to begin developing this land. When the allocations were made we received $68 million. This was a cut of $57 million. That was the money we intended to use to develop Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD: Santa Claus was not so generous that time.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE: That is right. The housing boom had suddenly disappeared in the same way as did the mining boom; it was past its peak and on the way down. Why have we not been able to proceed with this as rapidly as possible? We have had certain requirements under planning schemes for satellite towns to make sure that the Housing Commission's thousands of acres merge in with the general planning required for the whole of the town. At the time of purchase we were independent, as we had been for so long. If the money had come from Canberra we could have gone ahead and planned these estates as we wanted to, but because of the cutback in funds and because of the need, which I accept, to merge in with the planning of Melton, Pakenham and Sunbury as satellite towns, much work has been done and progress made. It should be remembered that when this land was bought it was bought not for our 1973-74 needs but for our needs in the next ten to fifteen years.

It is interesting that in the ten years prior to 1972, the commission in buying land in the greater metropolitan area spent $7· 5 million. In 1972 we spent $10 million to meet our needs for the next ten years. Therefore, the $10 million which was spent in 1972 to last until 1982-85 was wisely spent. In the previous ten years it cost $7 million in the greater metropolitan area to buy an equivalent amount of land for high-rise flats, and so on, to house a similar number of people. I believe our story for those who were around at the time was quite magnificent. The concept was approved by all parties, and by the editorials of newspapers. Today in the light of hindsight it may have been wrong.

As I said when I commenced my speech, over the past two months I have been judged and found guilty by the Opposition and by the media, for having carried out the general policy which was approved by Parliament at the time. It was debated by the Parliament. At that time we were as open as it was possible to be with Ministerial statements and questions in the House. Not one question that is being asked today was not asked and answered as recorded in Hansard of 1972, 1973 and 1974.

I have deliberately omitted to refer to any of the matters that are the subject of a board of inquiry. I have given chapter and verse as closely as possible. I have left out much but I have tried to closely recreate the atmosphere that existed in 1972-73 in the land boom era when developers were everywhere and in many instances Governments could not move in without dealing with option holders, and so on.

I believe our story is still good. I do not believe we have squandered $10·5 million. Today the valuation of that land may be close to what the Housing Commission paid. It could be slightly less or slightly more. The Housing Commission is a housing and land commission. Houses cannot be built without buying land. r believe the investment we made on behalf of the public in 1972-73 was a wise one. It was instrumental in more houses being built.

In conclusion, I m&ke the following statement-

I, Vance Oakley Dickie do swear: That I have not spoken to or communicated by letter or any other means or asked anybody to do so on my behalf and that I do not know personally or would recognize-

(a) Any estate agent used by the Victorian Housing Commission for any land transactions.

(b) The Valuer-General for the State of Victoria or any valuer in the Valuer-General's Department.


(c) The Duncan family or anybody associated with the companies from which the balance of the land at Pakenham was purchased.

(d) The McMahon family or anybody associated with Lensworth Finance (Victoria) Pty. Ltd., from which the Sunbury land was purchased.

(e) Anybody associated with Nandina, Welmac, Cambridge Credits or any other company involved, from whom the Melton land was purchased.

My conscience is clear in the knowledge that in the purchase of land at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton I am not aware of any action which I took which was irregular and not in accordance with established principles.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY: Who wrote that for you?

The Hon. V. 0 DICKIE: I did.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Doutta Galla Province): I support the addendum moved by Mr. Trayling that the following words be added to the motion-and arising out of the contents of the statement is of the opinion that the Minister for Local Government and the Chief Secretary deserve the strongest censure for their incapacity in administration when holding the portfolios of Minister for Planning and Minister of Housing, respectively. I should like to commence by looking at what the Housing Commission and more specifically the former Minister of Housing set out to create as Australia's very own Venice, namely Pakenham Park. In January, 1973, a stock agent of Dalgetys informed Dalgetys Dandenong rural estate agent, Mr. Clifford Fella, that Mr. Duncan of Pakenham Park was prepared to sell his property for $2,700 an acre.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province): On a point of order, does Mr. White propose to read the whole of his speech or just a few lines of it?

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. W. G. Fry) : Order! There is no point of order. I will observe Mr. White from now on. He is aware that he will

not be allowed to continue reading but he is allowed to read certain parts.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Doutta Galla Province): I wish to adhere only to the facts of this issue, which are complex and difficult. I intend to ensure that the facts I present are right for your benefit, Sir, so that you will begin to understand the magnitude of this issue. Mr. Duncan advised Mr. Fella to sell his property at Pakenham Park and put it on the market at $2,700 an acre.

On 26th January, 1973, Dalgetys was appointed the sole agent for the sale of the property. Earlier in January, 1973, or perhaps late in December, 1972, Mr. Fella of Dalgetys approached Dillon and Inkster to assist him in selling the property owned by Duncan at Pakenham Park for $2,700 an acre. He approached Dillon and Inkster because he said that he had had a similar experience in 1971 of selling land for development purposes with Dillon and Inkster at Narre Warren.

Mr. Fella at a much later stage wrote to L. J. Hooker (Vic.) Ltd. and also to Dalgetys associated company responsible for residential development, namely Dalgety (Development) Company Pty. Ltd. offering to sell the property in conjunction with either of those two parties. I am trying to point out that in the first instance Mr. Fella went to Dillon and Inkster directly because he knew that Dillon and Inkster had had a past association with the Housing Commission and he also knew that it was common knowledge amongst the real estate profession generally that if one wanted to sell land to the Housing Commission one had to go through Dillon and Inkster.

The Hon. D. N. SALTMARSH: What are your allegations?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: I am saying that in order to sell broad acres of land to the Housing Commission for development purposes at Sunbury, Melton and Pakenham and even


in other areas, it was common knowledge that to do so one had to go through Dillon and Inkster.

The Hon. D. N. SALTMARSH: That is your allegation?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Yes. In doing so, Mr. Fella was well aware that he was going to forgo a substantial portion of the commission on the sale of Pakenham Park. The commission was ultimately divided between Dillon and Inkster and Dalgetys, and Mr. Fella's share of the commission was $3,500. However, in order to receive $3,500 he had to forgo an equivalent amount which went to Dillon and Inkster, and his employers had to forgo an amount of $10,500.

A question which arises is: Despite the fact Mr. Fella knew Mr. Riach of the Housing Commission, why did he not go to him directly or, even more specifically, why did he not go to his associate company which had a record in residential development? The reason is he knew that he could not sell land to the Housing Commission without going to Dillon and Inkster.

On 21st March, 1973, Mr. Riach of the Housing Commission rang Mr. Fella and asked him to furnish title details of the Pakenham Park land. On 1st April, 1973, Mr. Morey of the Valuer-General's Office valued Pakenham Park at $2· 1 million, or $2,800 per acre which is eight times what the Shire of Pakenham thought it was worth at the end of 1969.

It is also worth pointing out that the Housing Commission purchased the Duncan land knowing that adjoining land also owned by Duncan had been sold nine months previously for $800 per acre to a man named Mr. Crichlow. As my colleague Mr. Trayling pointed out, that land owned by Mr. Crichlow and which was formerly part of the Duncan estate, had been purchased for only $800 per acre and was closer to the township of Pakenham, had made roads around it, was not subject to flooding and actually had houses built on it at the

time; yet the Housing Commission went ahead and purchased Pakenham Park for $2,700 per acre.

On 10th April the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission indicated that some of the land comprising the Pakenham Park estate was flood prone and it was common knowledge that in 1971 for the second time in 40 years flood waters had flowed over Pakenham Park.

The Hon. N. F. STACEY: That is not true.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Notwithstanding, the Housing Commission decided to enter into a contract for the purchase of Pakenham Park knowing that it was flood prone and partly unsuitable for residential development.

According to the Housing Commission files, a report from the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission referred to erosion having occurred along Toomuc Creek and stated that any increased flow resulting from land development would accelerate scouring and increase the time the lower levels would be covered with water. The report further stated that there were no suitable flood-water retarding basins available and that there were no areas which could be developed as retarding basins.

The Hon. N. F. STACEY: What is your authority for that?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: It is in the report submitted by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission which is contained in the Housing Commission files.

The Hon. N. F. STACEY: What is the date of that report?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Mr. Stacey can find the date.

The Hon. N. F. STACEY: It is September, 1974.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: That report became available to the Housing Commission, as I indicated earlier, on 10th April.

The Hon. N. F. STACEY: Which year?


The Hon. D. R. WHITE: 1973, before the Housing Commission entered into the contract for the purchase of Pakenham Park. That was known then. It was also known that it would cost a substantial amount of money to ensure that the area would not be flooded in future, yet in determining the valuation of that land the cost of preserving the area from flooding was not taken into account. If it had been taken into account, as it most properly should have been, the amount which the Housing Commission would have offered for Pakenham Park would have been substantially lower-something like $800 per acre at which Mr. Crichlow was able to buy the adjoining property from Mr. Duncan.

On 12th April, 1973, at the Duncan property, the Duncan family in conjunction with Mr. Fella and Mr. Bob Dillon negotiated the sale of the property with Mr. Riach and Mr. Creighton from the Housing Commission. On 17th April the Housing Commission paid $200,000 into the trust account of Dillon and Inkster and on 21 st April the contract of sale was signed, the sale price being $1· 98 million or approximately $2,700 per acre. None of the land has been built on, and in fact, within a few weeks of the purchase it was leased back for grazing purposes.

The Housing Commission, or more particularly the Government, as evidenced by the statement made tonight by the Chief Secretary, was motivated by four factors-firstly, the availability of funds under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, secondly, by the internal generation of funds from the sale of houses by the commission, thirdly, the fear of compulsory acquisition of broad acres by the Federal Labor Minister for Housing, and, fourthly, by the difficulty of continuing with slum reclamation in the inner areas.

It has always appeared publicly that the Pakenham Park sale was a simple sale by a farmer to the Housing Commission, but nothing could be further from the truth. In June,

Session 1977.-321

1972, Mr. Crichlow, who purchased the adjoining property, entered into a contract regarding the Duncan land and in July, 1972, Mr. Crichlow entered a caveat over Pakenham Park. That caveat appears on the title of the Pakenham Park land and was not withdrawn until June, 1973. However, the valuer, Mr. Morey, claims that he did not see the caveat on the title. The Housing Commission may well have experienced some difficulty in obtaining title to that land if it had known the full circumstances of the caveat. It certainly would have reduced the valuation.

The real instigators of the sale to the Housing Commission were a group of intermediaries including Mr. Crichlow. Certainly the company or the individuals who had the caveat over the property on 21st April, 1973, were entitled to benefit by the sale. This could be proved by examining the income and expenditure accounts of the Duncan brothers' estates.

In June, 1973, the Housing Commission purchased an additional property, the Bramich property, for $65,000 or $2,600 per acre. The commission was split 50: 50 between Dillon and Inkster and Dalgetys.

In July, 1973, the Housing Commission purchased another property, O'Brien's, for $105,000, and once again the commission was split 50: 50 between Dalgetys and Dillon and Inkster.

On both ocasions Dillon and Inkster had approached Mr. Fella and asked him to approach the relevant farmers to see whether they would be prepared to sell their properties to the Housing Commission to make up the one parcel of land.

Subsequent to those two purchases, which were after the first purchase, there was an additional block still to be obtained and which should have been purchased simultaneously with Pakenham Park because it was the choicest piece of land and was situated in the middle of the estate. However, first it was sold to Lensworth Finance for $212,000, or $2,000 an


acre. That sale by Stainton in October, 1972, to Lensworth Finance was used as a guide by the Valuer-General to determine the price of Pakenham Park.

What the Opposition alleged is that the Stainton sale price was an artificially contrived price used to jack up the price of Pakenham Park. That affected the valuation because that property was ultimately sold to the Housing Commission. The Stainton property deal was contrived by McGregor Kean and the property was eventually sold to the Housing Commission. Not only did the Housing Commission allow itself to be taken in by the sale of the Stain ton property but also, to add insult to injury, instead of obtaining an option over the Lensworth property early in 1973, the Housing Commission waited until after Lensworth Finance had sold that property to Delgrange, later renamed Greyoak, at a price of $3,100 per acre and ultimately did not pick it up until 6th December, 1973, for $3,500 per acre, thus enabling Delgrange to make a gross profit of $42,000 in two months. The Stainton property was used as a benchmark by the ValuerGeneral.

However, it was a contrived sale by Lensworth Finance in that it was originally bought at a price well in excess of the existing market value. Lensworth Finance subsequently sold the property to Delgrange, later renamed Greyoak which in turn sold it to the Housing Commission for $3,500 per acre at a time when the Housing Commission could have intervened and placed an option over the property or even compulsorily acquired it at a much lower price.

The Opposition believes the sale was a pay-off to Graeme Hill for services rendered at Sunbury in that he kept out of the way thus enabling Kean to approach Lensworth Finance and then the subsequent resale to the Housing Commission occurred. I t is interesting to note the number of characters who continually reappear in these transactions.

The Hon. O. G. JENKINS: Why? The Hon. D. R. White.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: Because it confirms the point that if one wanted to sell land to the Housing Commission, one had to have the sale go through Dillon and Inkster. It was the same pattern; one had to approach Dillon and Inkster, particularly the deal made in conjunction with Lensworth Finance, and to keep Graeme Hill out of the way they had to offer him part of the deal over the Stainton property at Pakenham.

In 1974 the new Shire of Pakenham development plan proposed that only the eastern third of the Housing Commission property be zoned for urban development. The LensworthDelgrange land and all of the Pakenham Park property west of Toomuc Creek would remain zoned as rural. In that sense, the Government has lived up to its promise because that land is still being used for grazing purposes and the $2· 5 million which has been expended by the Housing Commission has virtually gone down the drain.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT: How much an acre would it be worth for grazing purposes?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE: About 6 cents per acre, on my reckoning. In July, 1976, State Cabinet approved the Shire of Pakenham plan to retain more than two-thirds of the property for rural purposes although the Housing Commission had purchased the land for development purposes. That means that two-thirds of the land for which the Housing Commission had spent $2· 5 million, as a result of a Cabinet decision in July, 1976, became useless for anything other than farming. In total, the Housing Commission purchased 936 acres of flood:" prone land for $2· 5 million and on 16th July, 1973, the land at Paken~ ham was leased back for grazing purposes. The Pakenham land has not been used productively to fulfil the intentions of the Housing Commission.

The holding costs on an outlay of $2·5 million conservatively estimated at 10· 5 per cent represents a holding charge of $262,000 a year or spread