Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 2 DECEMBER 1965

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions (2 DECEMBER] Questions 2001

THURSDAY, 2 DECEMBER, 1965

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, MurrumbJ) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

.ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr. Speaker:-

Land Ta·1, Acts Amendment Bill:

Parliamentuy Contributory Superannuation Fund Acts Amendment Bill;

Local Government Acts Amendment Bill; Busine~s Names Act Amendment Bill.

QUESTIONS

Df,IRYTI"G PROJECT, GIBBER GUNYAH AREA

Mr. Lloydl, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Local Government,-

What decision has been reached as a result of the inter-departmental conference set down for November relating to the plight of settlers on the Gibber Gunyah dairying settlement?

Answer:-"Initial discussions have been held

between officers of the Irrigation Com­mission and the Agricultural Bank. Further discussions between officers of the Irriga­tion Commission, Agricultural Bank and Department of Primary Industries are being held today. No decisions have yet been reached."

TEST LOADS ON ToWNSVILLE-MT. !SA RAILWAY LINE

Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

(1) Have tests been conducted with trains on the Townsville-Mt. Isa line approximately a half-mile in length and with a gross weight of approximately 2,500 tons? If so, what was the locomotive power and how many enginemen were employed?

(2) How many other men worked the train?

( 3) Are these test loads to be accepted as normal train requirements and, if so, will any extra pay or allowances be made to the men working them?

( 4) What was the maximum approxi­mate length and gross weight of trains hauled between Townsville and Hughenden by a steam locomotive?

Answers:-( 1) "Tests were conducted between

Stuart and Hughenden with trains having a length of 2,032 feet and a gross load of 2,386 tons and 2,346 tons. Each train was hauled by two 90-ton diesel electric locomotives working in multiple and manned by two enginemen."

(2) "One Guard. The officers conducting the tests were the locomotive engineer, a locomotive inspector and a sub-foreman from the Diesel shed, Townsville."

(3) "These test loads are being con­ducted for the purpose of determining the train loads with multiple diesel working on the rehabilitated Mount Isa Railway. The pay and allowances to men working these trains will be those laid down in the Railway Award-State."

( 4) "The through train load for a C17 steam locomotive was 325 tons Townsville to Hughenden for a length of approxi­mately 1,050 feet."

NEW HIGH SCHOOL, TOWNSVILLE

Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Has any decision been made as to the site and approximate date of commence­ment of building a new high school in Townsville and, if so, will he inform the House as fully as possible on the matter?

Answer:-"My Department has selected a site in

the Dalrymple Road area and early action will be taken to secure it. I am unable at this stage to indicate when a high school will be established on this site; it will depend on the growth of secondary enrol­ments in the area. This matter is under the continual notice of my Department."

2002 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

MEANS TEST IN PURCHASE OF ARTIFICIAL LIMBS BY PENSIONERS

Mr. Hanson, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

( 1) Is it a fact that no means test is required by his Department for pen­sioners requiring a surgical stocking?

( 2) Is it a fact that a strict means test applies to pensioners requiring the issue of an artificial limb?

( 3) As an artificial limb costs nearly twenty times as much as a surgical stocking and as a pensioner has less chance personally of paying for the dearer item, will he investigate this glaring anomaly?

Answer:-

( 1 to 3) "My Department receives numerous applications for surgical stockings and other medical and surgical aids from pensioners and from others who claim that they are unable to afford these items. To determine such applications with as little delay as possible and with a mini­mum of inconvenience, it has been the practice to impose no additional means test once an applicant has established that he is a full pensioner. Applications also are received from pensioners and others for assistance to purchase artificial limbs. As the Honourable Member indicates, these are expensive items, and as the custodian of public moneys my Department has to ensure that persons who are granted such assistance would be unable to meet the cost of artificial limbs without hardship. Consequently, all applicants including pensioners are subjected to a means test. I can see nothing anomalous in the exercise of all reasonable care in the disbursement of public funds."

CASUALTY SECTION, NORTH BRISBANE HosPITAL

Mr. Campbell, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

( 1) Has his attention been drawn to a recent press statement by the Honourable Member for Nudgee that (a) the present casualty section at North Brisbane Hospital is housed in a building put up in 1916, (b) it is quite inadequate, (c) there are no waiting rooms and (d) privacy for the patients does not exist?

(2) Are these statements correct and. if so, what action is being taken to remedy the conditions outlined by the Honourable Member?

Answer:-

(1 and 2) "Yes, I have read press comments by the Honourable Member for Nudgee regarding the casualty section at North Brisbane Hospital. Mr. Melloy's statements are incorrect. The present casualty building was erected af'er World War II in 1949. by the Labour Government of that time;

that is some 33 years later than the date mentioned by Mr. Melloy. Admittedly there was some lack of foresight by our predecessors and the accommodation is smaller than desired, but to say there are no waiting rooms and no privacy is a completely irresponsible and incorrect statement. Provision will be made in the projected Block 7 for a new casualty and a new outpatient department."

CONCESS!ONAL RAIL FREIGHTS ON 'WHEAT FOR PaUL TRY FODDER

Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

Further to his Answer on November 2, relative to freight concession on wheat for poultry feed in Far North Queensland, and in view of the statement of the Far North Queensland Poultry Farmers' Association Secretary, Mr. L. Westwood, which appeared in The Cairns Po:st of November 30, will he consider (a) the cantinuation of concessional freight to the Atherton Maize Board and (h) a similar conces­sional freight to any individual poultry farmer in the Far North area?

Anslver:-"(a) Extension of the conces,1ivn referred

to was given on November 9, 1965. (b) The arrangement is one between the Atherton Maize Board, the State Wheat Board, and the Rajlway Department, and could n~.t be applied to individual poultry farmers.

STAFF EMPLOYED IN TRA!NlNG OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

;\Ill·. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Further to his Answer to my Question on November 24-

( 1 ) At what towns other than Brisbane are full-time field officers of the Depan­ment of Native Affairs located?

(2) How many (a) female and (bl male welfare officers of the Department arc employed full-time in Brisbane?

( 3) How many of the Department\ field staff are qualified by a degree or diploma in (a) anthropology and (b} social studies?

Answers:-( 1) "Full time field officers are located

at Cairns, Townsville and Thursday Island."

(2) "The staff of the Brisbane office <!mounts to 36. comprising 13 females and 23 males. All of the work on which officers are engaged is for the general welfare of aborigines:·

Questions [2 DECEMBER) Questions 2003

(3) "Nil. One officer undertook a course in Aboriginal Welfare at the Sydney University. Departmental officers, during long years of service, have gained an intimate knowledge of the problems facing aborigines and of the manner in which assistance can best be afforded them. Such knowledge enables these officers to effi­ciently carry out the duties required of them, despite the fact that diplomas or degrees are not held."

DISTRICT OFFICERS UNDER ABORIGINES'

AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS' AFFAIRS

AcT Mr. Wams-Smith, pursuant to notice,

asked The 1\Iinister for Education,-In view of the proviSIOn in "The

Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' Affairs Acr of 1965" for clerks of the court to replace police officers as district officers. how m:..ny centres will be controlled by (a) cl er} . .:; of the court and (b) police officers?

Answer:·-" ''The Aborigines' and Tun·es Strait

Islanders' Afj.airs Act of 1965" provides that every Magistrate Court District shall, upon the commencement of the Act, be a district called by the same name for the purpose of this Act. There are 206 Magistrate Court Districts. At 98 of such districts there are civil cle-rks of the court. Police officers act as clerks of the court in J 08 districts. Although all Magistrate Court Districts have been included since aborigines are likely to move into many areas where employment becomes available, at present there are very few, if any, aborigines in 69 of the districts where police officerR act as clerks of the Court."

REPRINT!\'(G OF INDUSTRIAL AWARDS IN

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Mr. R, Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The r,1inister for Labour and Industry,-

Havc arrangements been made for the publication and printing of Industrial Gazettes and individual Awards showing wage rate~;, &c.. in dollars and cents on or before "C" day, February 14, 1966?

Answer:-"Yes~~'

MUl .. G!\A VE SHIRE SECTION OF BRUCE

HIGHWAY

Mr. Armstrong, pursuant to notice, asked The 'lvlinister for Mines,-

As the Bruce Highway south of Canal Creek in the Mulgrave Shire is in a bad state, when does he intend to reconstruct or realign the section?

Answer:-"Plans are being prepared for works to

commence this financial year."

HoUSING CoMMISSION HOUSES, BABINDA, GORDONVALE AND MILLAA MILLAA

Mr. Armstrong, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

What action has his Department taken in providing Housing Commission homes in Babinda, Gordonvale and Millaa Millaa 0

Answer:-"At Babinda the Commission has pro­

vided five houses; tenders for one house have closed but the applicant then with­drew; Commission building sites are affected by new road plans and the purchase of eight additional sites was recently approved; tenders for two houses will be called when the land purchase is finalised by the vendor. At Gordonvale 14 houses have been provided; a contract for three houses was let in May 1965, one of which is complete and two under con­struction; one home ownership application is under consideration and five building sites are available. At Millaa Millaa five houses have been provided; eight building sites are held; a proposal to erect two rental houses for nominees of a local employer lapsed when the employer with­drew from the arrangement; an application for a Commission loan to another employer for erection of a house on his land was withdrawn by the employer. In the three towns there is a total of two priority rental applications and six without priority. Loans up to £3,500 are available for the erection of Workers' Dwellings, and the Commission owned sites may be selected by persons desiring the erection of houses for purchase."

NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TOWNSVILLE

Mr. Tucker, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

In view of the cramped and sub-standard accommodation now available at the Townsville police station and taking into account the expected rapid increase in population in the near future, will he con­sider acquiring at an equitable price the premises now owned by the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade at Towns­ville, with a view to constructing a new and adequate police headquarters?

Answer:-"Subject to certain alterations now being

planned at the Townsville Police Station. the accommodation at that station will meet essential requirements for some time. Should a new police station building be planned at some future date, the present police reserve will provide sufficient area for such building, and there is no present intention of acquiring a new site."

2004 Ministerial Statement [ASSEMBLY] Ministerial Statement

PAPER

The following paper was laid on the table:-

Regulations under the Stamp Acts, 1894 to 1965.

FORM OF QUESTION

Mr. BENNEIT (South Brisbane) having given notice of a question-

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Notice of a ques­tion along the same lines as the last part of the hon. member's question has already been given.

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha): I desire to ask the Minister for Primary Industries a question without notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is fully aware that questions without notice are not permitted without prior notice to the Minister. Has the Minister been advised?

Mr. LICKISS: No. I was not in the House--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! No question allowed!

Mr. LICKISS having given notice of a question--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Notice of a similar question has already been given.

Mr. LICKISS: I rise to a point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I shall have a look at the hon. member's question.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF CATTLE SEMEN

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-:Minister for Primary Industries) (11.26 a.m.): I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I was advised this morning that the Minister for Primary Industries would be making a ministerial statement. I have since received a message that when I asked if there was any further minis­terial business, the Minister had not at that stage received his statement. I think, with the indulgence of the House, we should at this stage hear what the Minister has to say on this very important matter.

Honourable Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask for strict order whilst the Minister is making his state­ment. I add that I shall have a look at one or two of the questions of which notice has been given after the statement has been made.

Mr. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Primary Industries) (11.27 a.m.): Recently some cattle semen was illegally introduced from North America, part of which was used by the person concerned to inseminate four cows on his property at Mt. Crosby in South-east Queensland. Australia prohibits the importation of ruminant semen from countries other than Great Britain and New Zealand, because several exotic diseases could be introduced in this way, including the serious disease of sheep known as blue tongue. This is an insect-borne disease, so that its control and eradication are almost impossible once it has been established.

In the interests of our sheep and cattle industries the Queensland Department of Primary Industries has taken immediate action to overcome any risk which may possibly be present in this instance. In doing so it was guided and supported by the recommenda­tions of a Veterinary Consultative Commit­tee which met last Tuesday under the aegis of the Australian Agricultural Council. Among those present at thrs meeting were Mr. K. S. Mcintosh, Assistant Director General (Animal Quarantine), Common­wealth Department of Health; Dr. T. S. Gregory, Chief, Division of Animal Health, C.S.I.R.O.; Mr. R. A. Hall, Chief, Division of Animal Industry, Department of Agricul­ture, New South Wales; and Mr. A. L. Clay, Director of the Division of Animal Industry, Queensland Department of Primary Indus­tries. Dr. Gregory is an acknowledged expert on exotic diseases and Mr. Mointosh for many years past has made a continuing study of measures taken in other countries against diseases exotic to Australia.

All cattle within 1!. miles of the farm on which the cattle were inseminated will be slaughtered-about 600 in all-and measures have been taken to destroy the carrier insects in the vicinity by full-scale use of insecticides. The cattle on the property where the inseminations took place were slaughtered on Tuesday and cattle on adjoining properties are being slaughtered today.

Although cattle themselves rarely show any sign of the disease, they are carriers of the blue-tongue virus and can readily transmit the infection to sheep. It is for this reason that the importation of cattle has been prohibited for some time past.

As far as foot-and-mouth disease is con­cerned, there was no suspicion whatsoever that the virus of this disease was present in the semen that was illegally introduced. Foot-and-mouth disease has not been present in North America for quite some years past.

Blue tongue has no public health implica­tions, and it has been agreed by the Veterinary Consultative Committee that it was safe for animals from the properties involved to be sent for slaughter. It was the view of the committee that all animals

Decimal Currency Bill [2 DECEMBER] Decimal Currency Bill 2005

except the four cows actually inseminated could not have reached the carrier stage at this time.

Appropriate tissue and blood specimens have been collected from animals on the property where the inseminations were carried out, and arrangements have been made to have them tested at the Onderstepoort Veterinary Research Laboratory near Pretoria, in the Republic of South Africa.

I feel that the livestock industries of Australia can be assured that no risks were being taken and that all practicable steps have been followed to ensure the safety of those indmtries against the possibility of blue tongu<e virus having been present in the illegally introduced semen.

Blue tong-Le is transmitted from animal to animal by the bites of very small flying insects knov. n as Culicoides (sandf!ies or midges). The assistance of the Army has been sought. and readily granted, with regard l.o fogging and spraying the area with insecticide both with the object of knocking down ffee-fl)· ing forms and treating breeding grounds. Compensation would be paid to the owners c:· : tock on the adjoining properties.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL

Ir,;rrJATION IN CoMMITTEE

(The Cha]r:nan of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. T" A. HILEY (Chatsworth-Trea­surer) (11.32 a.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced relating to and consequent on the intwduction in Australia of decimal currency."

This is a "::tecial Bill to facilitate the intro­duction of decimal currency on 14 February next. The Committee might well ask why there is ne..~ for this Bill seeing that the Commonwealth Parliament is in the course of passing comprehensive legislation on decimal currency. Briefly, the reason for the Bill is simnle. The Commonwealth Govern­ment has full constitutional power in relation to currency, coinage, and legal tender. How­ever, it has no constitutional power to amend the statute Jaws of this State. Hence the simple purpose of the Bill is to make necessary amendments to monetary references in the laws of the State consequent on the introduction of decimal currency.

The Bill provides that-(1) In State Acts and statutory instru­

ments, such as regulations, orders in council, by-laws, ordinances, and the like, all references to money in existing currency are to be construed as references to corresponding amounts in the new currency calculated on the "exact equivalents" basis, which is the basis laid down for conversion in the Commonwealth legislation. Under it the conversion is made by precise

mathematical calculation, even if it results in fractional figures-for example, one penny becomes five-sixths of a cent; and

(2) Where the "exact equivalent" con­version will be inappropriate or impractic­able-as it is in cases of some duties and taxes, especially those denoted by stamps­the conversion is made to manageable amounts. These exceptions to the general rule are specifically provided for in the two schedules to the Bill.

Judgments and orders of any court, awards under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts and awards made under the Interdict Act are specifically excluded from the provisions of the BiFl. Payment of judgments and orders is a matter of currency governed by the Commonwealth legislation and nothing more is needed in that regard. Awards have already been the subject of determination by the Industrial Court, so that, too, has been taken care of. Weekly wages will be converted exactly and the fraction of a cent will be eliminated by paying the next highest cent. For hourly rates the conveTsion will be made exactly to three places of a decimal of a cent. The payment will be calculated by multiplying this rate by the number of hours worked, and if the answer is still a fraction of a cent, payment will again be made to the next highest cent.

An examination has been carried out of all monetary references in statutory instruments such a:s regulations, by-laws and the like. Where the reference converts without frac­tions, or where a fraction results but is still manageable, the general rule of exact equivalent conversion provided in the Bill will apply. Where these references will not convert in manageable amount·s and a new rate or amount has to be determined specially, power is taken for an Order in Council to be made for the necessary amendment. We have examine'li this position very closely and the amendments we propose to the statutory instruments will have very little effect on revenue levels.

Variations to statute law are provided in the two schedules to the Bill. The first schedule amends the Stamp Duties Acts. Mle felt it better to rewrite the whole schedule to these Acts because constant reference is made thereto for rates of duty. A man should not be asked to refer to the old schedule, obtain the information from it, and then refer to the schedule of variations. We thought it better to restate the entire schedule so that the public would be able to refer to it more easily. I have already disclosed in the Financial Statement the main alterations made to rates of stamp duty that wiJil substantially affect our revenues.

Variations to the other statute law are provided in the second schedule. Again, any variations here that will have apprecia­tive effect on revenue have already been mentioned in the Financial Statement.

2006 Decimal Currency Bill [ASSEMBLY] Decimal Currency Bill

The work involved in accumulating the information for th1s Bill has been con­siderable, and the many factors involved in its application are such that it is possible some item may have been overlooked. For this reason, a provision has been included giving the Governor in Council power to prescribe any steps that may be considered necessary for resolving doubts and difficulties which may arise under the conversion.

I assure 'hon. members that the planning for the introduction of decimal currency in State Government departments and offices is well advanced. A State Government Steering Committee was appointed earlier this year to examine the requirements of the Public Service and to co-ordinate depart­mental plans in line with Government policy and generally to ensure the smooth change­over to the new currency. Constant touch has been maintained with similar committees in the other States and common problems have been examined, discussed, and resolved. Committees have been appointed in each department to plan and pilot through the detailed steps required to be taken in the departments and their country offices before and after the conversion.

Treasury accounting policies have been fixed and advised to all departments. As I mentioned previously, State industrial awards have been determined by the Industrial Commission. Provision for the conversion of State-imposed fees and charges are pro­vided for in the Bill.

The accounting machine problem has been overcome satisfactorily. This is a major problem in most States, and it is pleasing to note that, in our opinion, Queensland will be the least inconvenienced of any in thi's regard. Over recent years the Govern­ment has delayed the purchase of replace­ment machines pending the introducing of decimal currency. The rewards of this policy are now being reaped, because replacements with new machines that will be on hand before "C" day will simplify conversion.

Extensive training courses have been under­taken in the metropolitan offices and in country area:s. This training will continue within departments until the actual conver­sion takes place. The aim is that the Government offices in the city and country will be the model to which business and the community generally can look for advice and example.

The Bill is essentially machinery in nature and is part and parcel of the whole govern­mental organisation to meet the problems of conversion on and after "C" day.

The schedule to the Bill sets out and contains the necessary amendments to some­thing in the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 different Acts. We had to ponder whether we would come to this Parliament and present each of those with a separate amendment. From the pure drafting point of view there is much to be said for the argument that

an Act with a type and style of its own should be amended by a separate amending Bill clearly related to this purpose; but, having regard to the volume and the problems involved, the Government considers that we would have the Parliament completely pegged down in the process month after month, dealing with and passing 40 or 50 different Bills, each amending a relevant individual Act. Con­sequently, we considered it wiser to bring down this enabling Bill with a schedule appended enabling each individual Act which has monetary terms to be mentioned.

The schedule sets out the new figures. I would only perplex the Committee with these figures if I presented them now. I suggest that this is essentially a Bill that calls for a good deal of close examination, and I pro­pose, in the second-reading stage, to sum­marise, after members have had an oppor­tunity to go through the schedule and see the figures. They will then be able to follow more closely what I am presenting, and see the arithmetical effect of the various steps which were narrated in the Financial State­ment.

Mr. Aikens: Have you ensured that the schedule will leave no legal loophope in any of the Acts listed?

Mr. HILEY: As far as it 1,1;as possible to do so by the use of these committees, which comprised people from the Treasury. We referred to Treasury officers in other States and to Commonwealth officials, and we have learned all we could.

The problem is so vast that li have not attempted to dismiss entirely the possibility of some error; consequently, as I indicated, one of the clauses in the Bill enables the Governor in Council to prescribe, by Order in Council, any steps which may be considered necessary for resolving any doubts and diffi­culties which may arise under the conversion.

I am quite satisfied that it is not possible for a tax to be imposed other than by statute of this Parliament. We cannot, with n blanket clause, entitle any administration through the Governor in Council to change a tax, repeal a tax or impose a tax, and we dOJ not attempt to do that. I think it would be a very bad principle if such an attempt was considered. Only Parliament can employ the right to tax, but in the administrative part of this matter there just might be a situation where we have failed to pick up the con­version of a monetary duty imposed by the present law and have therefore provided an appropriate provision to apply the same prin­ciple, to the same degree, and for the same amount, under the new law. That dause has been put in for what it is worth in the hope that it might overcome the possibility to which the hon. member referred.

With those observations, 1 C!.':nmend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba West­Leader of the Opposition) (11.44 a.m.): I think it will be agreed that this is a very important measure, although its provisions

Decimal Currency Bill (2 DECEMBER] Decimal Currency Bill 2007

relate to machinery actions to give effect to ;he intentions of authorities in Government in Australia to convert to decimal currency in February next.

This proposal represents, in the eyes of most people, a forward step; in the eyes of ~ome it is retrogressive step. But I think enlightened public opinion throughout the \'orld favoc1rs the decimal form of currency because ell its ease of computation and because of many other economic savings that will be effected. It will simplify the instruction of arithmetic in schools and will enable cbil.dren to apply the time thus saved to other subjects. It is said that the advan­tages of converting to the new system of currency wi:J greatly outweigh the disadvan­tages.

It is interesting to observe that there was a time whe·n Australia had decimal currency. In 1822, ::u1d for the four years following, we had the Spanish dollar. That involved decimal currency. However, the British Treasury insisted that there should be uniform currency throughout the colonies and the Spanish dollar, to use the Treasurer's words of Tuesday night, fell into desuetude.

Mr. HiJley: I would not mind a few of them today.

Mr. DUGGAN: It did happen at that time.

The new method will be inconvenient for a period. It will take some adjustment, but it is s-c:rprising how many classes have been held on the conversion to decimal currency. On the other hand, prominent businessmen have failed to answer questions submitted to them on certain arithmetical pmblems covering the use of decimal currency.

The aufr-orities concerned have stepped up the-ir propaganda and publicity in recent times. In the last couple of weeks several girls have 'been appointed to banks. Their duties are to answer questions and inform the public on this subject. It is also pleasing to notice that in recent months some of the newspapers have been quoting the decimal currency equivalents to the existing n1oney va]~-~e.

It has been estimated that in the vicinity of £27,000,000 will be require·d to convert adding machines and similar office equip­ment, and it will take 1,000 fully trained men at least 100 weeks to effect the neces­sary conversions. It will be a tremendous task. lt is expected that the change-over will be a smooth process. I hope that will be the case.

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that recognition is given to the change-over to the proposed new currency. The Treasurer has indicated that as far as is possible steps will be taken to have accurate and quick adjustment of money values when conver­sion takes place. Of course, it will not be possible in all cases for that to be done. ln some ir<::ances where it cannot be done, it

may be that it will to some extent cut across the power of Parliament to impose increased taxation.

Mr. Hiley: If it goes into the schedule, Parliament will be dealing with it.

Mr. DUGGAN: There is machinery which deals with that provision.

I am not particularly concerned about the Bill itself, because it is introduced as a result of action taken by the authorities in anticipation of the needs of the community, the Government and everybody else con­cerned. What I am concerned about is whether, under the proposed decimal system, unfair advantage will be taken to increase prices to the detriment of the ordinary per­·son in the community. We have had evidence already of this trend. One news­paper company has indicated that it pro­poses to incre·ase the price of "The Courier­Mail" from 5d. to 5 cents. It may sound the same, but in actual fact it is 6d. instead of 5d.

I have here an article which says that the fares of school children al·so will be increased considerably when decimal currency is introduced. Because of the loss associated with children's fares owing to the council's failure to reach agreement on some sort of subsidy from the Government to help meet the cost of transporting school children, which is uneconomic at the present time, it seems that soon the present charge of 3d. will rise to 5 cents, which is equal to 6d., representing a 100 per cent. increase in fares.

We know that increases are to take place in quite a range of foods; notification to that effect has been given. Action has already been taken to increase the price of some confectionery lines, and I think most of us are conscious of the fact that these changes have occurred in many directions.

The Federal Treasurer has made a pro­nouncement on income tax, which is a very lucrative form of revenue for the authorities. He said that there would be no net gain to the Treasury as a result of con­version to decimal currency. There should not be any net gain to anyone in the com­munity as a result of this change. The Commonwealth Government has been very generous in subsidising the cost of con­verting business machines, and so on, as it considers that this international form of currency should be followed, and firmly believes there is justification for it.

No doubt, in the course of time this conversion will be followed by a con­version to the metric system of measure­ment. We learnt in the last few days that, for the first time, Britain has agreed to pave the way for the introduction of the metric system. In a few days one of Britain's largest screw manufacturers will commence producing screws to metric measure. It is therefore only a matter of time before that change occurs to enable Britain to com­pete more effectively on world markets, and

2008 Decimal Currency Bill [ASSEMBLY] Decimal Currency Biti

to make it simpler for international buyers to have interchangeable parts more readily available. This is extremely important. Those who work on farm properties will agree with me that nothing is more frus­trating than to have imported machinery with metric screws or threads for which a replace­ment is needed and, although the screws are only microscopically different, the person concerned has to pay five times the price of an ordinary type of screw for one with a metric thread. This occurs frequently with imported machines.

I do not wish to develop a debate on metric measurement, but I point out that undoubtedly, following the transition in Feb­ruary to decimal currency, the next step forward will be to the system of metric measure. It will then be only a question of time before we convert to the system of driving on the nght-hand side of the road. Sweden recently effected this conversion at a cost of some millions of pounds, and I suppose it is only a question of time before the system is introduced in Australia.

Mr. Aikens: There is no urgent neces­sity for that, but there is a real necessity for conversion to the metric system.

Mr. DUGGAN: Unquestionably there is a stronger case for the metric system. The main trouble with conversion to left-hand drive will be met in the luxury motor-cars with right-hand drive. However, I do not think we should concern ourselves very much about that as existing manufacturers can cater for our major needs. I point out that such matters will arise from time to time.

I indicated the other day that I did not wish to canvass unduly the matter of prices. However, we are concerned about prices as we think that virtually all of them have got out of hand. It would not only be wrong, but almost criminal, for people to take advantage of the conversion to decimal currency to gain financial benefit. A specific instruction should be given to Ministers, particularly to the Minister for Labour and Industry, to issue a warning that not only will the Government look with disfavour upon such an action, but that it will unhesi­tatingly invoke its price-fixing powers to deal with anyone who takes advantage of the con­version to impose price increases that nor­mally would not occur.

That sort of thing makes for lazy business methods and destroys the initiative and spirit which Sir Alan Munro has spoken about so often and stressed so strongly. It is wrong if people are allowed to maintain their exist­ing net profits in this competitive age with­out exerting themselves. Warnings have been issued publicly, and I make the plea to the Government to take positive action to deal with people who increase commodity prices in the change-over from the existing £ s. d. currency to decimal currency.

I could speak at length on this general matter, but I do not want to waste the time of the Committee on a general dissertation. The proposal has apparently been examined with great care. I have no quarrel with the machinery chosen by the Treasurer in deal­ing with other Bills affected by this common­sense proposal. But I hope it will be pos­sible for that approach to be adopted in the handling of industrial awards, and that they will be dealt with automatically so that each individual union does not have to apply to have each award changed. I undeT­stand that matter has been considered. If it is good enough for the Government to set this example in dealing with adjustments which are necessary and desirable, it is just as unnecessary and undesirable that each individual union should have to apply to have each individual award altered. I do not know whether this Bill confers on the Industrial Registrar the right to make those adjustments automatically.

Mr. Hiley: Arrangements have been made.

Mr. DUGGAN: I think some approach has been made, but I am not certain of the nature of it.

Mr. Hiley: I understand that r:ew awards will be printed.

Mr. DUGGAN: If that is the case, I have no objection. It is largely a machinery proposal. But I do make the plea to the Treasurer to see that, in this tro.nsition from one currency to another, which has many advantages confirmed by royal com­missions which have given cogent reasons, advantage is not taken by unscrupulous people to profit by it. The Government should give attention to that matter.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (11.59 a.m.): I have no intention of speaking at length. The majority of the industrial fields have been covered in negotiations between the Govern­ment and the industrial unions, and State taxation is specifically covered by the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned commodity prices. I do not wish to speak at length on this matter, but this legislation should include a conversion table such as was included in the Commonwealth currency legislation in 1963. Most of the conver­sion tables that we see are being issued by people who advertise on them. The inclusion of a conversion table in the Bill would act as a serious deterrent to manufac­turers, retailers, and wholesalers who might endeavour to cheat the public during the transition period. If authorised conversion tables were included in the legislation and any departure from them was made illegal, the general public would have an opportunity to complain to the price-fixing authority if the exact conversions were not applied. Some consideration should be given to that matter.

It appears that everything else is covered in the proposal put forward by the Govern­ment, and I have no further points to raise.

Decimal Currency Bill [2 DECEMBER] Decimal Currency Bill 2009

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (12.1 p.m.): The real tragedy in the conversion to decimal currency is that the ones who will be fleeced are those who are least able to afford it; they are the ones who have to look at every penny before they spend it. As has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, any fleecing that is to occur will be done in pence, with people having to pay, for example, the equivalent of 6d. for what now costs 5d. There will be no fleecing in the payment of large amounts.

Mr. Hanwn: In some cases the device of new packaging will be used, so that people who have been paying 9d. for an article will have to pay 1s. for a package very little bigger.

Mr. AIKENS: That is so. The ones who will be fleeced in the conversion to decimal currency are workers on low wages and pensioners, who can least afford any loss. The Government should assist them by set­ting up some organisation or body to deal with this matter.

When the Treasurer was speaking I asked him by interjection to make sure that, as far as practicable, this law is clear of legal loop-holes that allow money to be made by lawyers and permit what I may call the contemptible section of the community to escape. I have in mind the fact that for many years it was possible to plead guilty in a court by letter. One person pleaded guilty by letter and was dealt with by a magistrate, but, because the magistrate sus­pended his driving licence, he immediately ran to the Full Court and said, "The laws of this land do not provide for a plea of guilty by letter." The Full Court had to uphold his submission and allow the appeal. That man was quite happy to plead guilty by letter till he was punished a little more severely than he thought he should have been. In dealing with all legislation, the first thing to ensure is that all possible loop­holes are closed.

Mr. Bennett: When I see the Bill I will check the schedule to see whether there are any loop-holes in it.

Mr. AIKENS: If the hon. member for South Brisbane agrees that the legislation is foolproof, I would suggest that the Treasurer have another look at it. The legal opinions given by the hon. member in this House from time to time have proved to be so faulty that no-one with any sense of respon­sibility would take any notice of them.

Conversion to decimal currency is, I think, a wonderful thing for this country and its people, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the sooner we convert to the metric system of measurement the better it will be. All who know anything about the education system and have tried to help young children with their schooling know the frightful tangles they get into when doing ordinary money sums. In the first place,

they have to add, multiply, or subtract the farthings and halfpennies and convert them to pennies. They then have to add the pennies and divide by 12 to convert them to shillings. They then have to divide by 20 to turn shillings into pounds. The most amazing thing is that at a later stage of their schooling, when they reach 5th or 6th grade, after having mastered the intricacies of pounds, shillings, pence, halfpennies, and farthings, they learn about decimals. Any­one who knows anything about children-! am sure the hon. member for Barcoo will substantiate this-knows that once they have been taught about decimals they get the idea that there are 10 pence in a shilling, and when doing money sums they carry 10 instead of 12. Why decimal currency has not been introduced long before this, I do not know.

I believe, too, that the metric system of land measurement should be adopted as soon as possible. No-one would know better than the hon. member for Barcoo and others who have tried to help children with their homework the terrible tangles children get into when they are doing sums dealing with land measurement and having to work in acres, rods, perches, chains, links, and so on. How often have hon. members had an elector come to them with his deed and try to tell them that his land is so many yards long and so many yards wide? They have had to point out to him that the figures on the deed are links, not yards. I think a link is 7 · 92 inches; the Treasurer can correct me if I am wrong.

In dealing with weight, one uses tons, hundredweights, quarters, stones, pounds, and ounces. Even greater confusion arises when the measurement of grain is under consideration, because there are 56 lb. to a bushel of maize, 60 lb. to a bushel of wheat, and 20 lb. to a bushel of bran or pollard, so a bushel is not even a standard measurement of grain.

I am digressing a little, so I shall not go into that matter any further. I support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that his suggestion that we should do away with all the invdlved systems of measurement will have the support of the Treasurer. Like Topsy, they just "growed", and we inherited them from Great Britain.

I welcome the Bill because the Treasurer has given the Committee an assurance that he has done everything possible to close all the loop-holes. I want to be quite sure that the schedule setting out_ a!ll the other Acts to which this conversion rate or basis will apply is at least legally sound. I do not want someone to come along later and take action under one of the Acts mentioned in the schedule and claim that this all-embracing Act does not reaP!y cover it.

Mr. BENNETT (South Brisbane) (12.7 p.m.): I wish to speak briefly of the period after conversion day. I should like the

2010 Decimal Currency Bill [ASSEMBLY] Decimal Currency Bill

Treasurer to tell the Committee what arrangements are being made in Queensland for the use of both types of coinage.

Of course. the intention is to convert on a particular· day; but, as I understand the situation, £ s. d. currency as well as decimal currency will be in circulation for some time afterwards. Shoppers using £ s. d. currency will have difficulty when they tender money that does not exactly cover the cost of the goods and then have to accept their change in decimal currency. It might well be that certain shopkeepers will decide to give their customers the benefit of the difference between cents and pennies; on the other hand, certain shopkeepers and chain stores might decide to take the benefit of the difference in value themselves.

I ask the Treasurer to indicate what action, if any, is to be taken to ensure that there is a fair and just exchange. Or will it be that ilie shopkeepers will say to a customer, "You had better take something else to bring it up to the correct vallue"? I expect iliai all their machines will be converted to decimal currency at that stage and the m.oney-changing machines and cash registers will work in decimals. This will create considerable confusion for those who produce what might be termed a non-exact amount of money. Statistics indicate that, in respect of not less than 80 per cent. of purchases, ilie average shopper tenders money in excess of the value of the goods he buys. So that this wiU happen quite regularly-;n fact, in 80 per cent. of purchases, according to statistics-for a period following conversion and will make the positi-on quite difficult.

Mr. lil!iens: The point is this: if a person tenders present money, will he be given decimal coiuage- in exchange?

Mr. DEl\~ETT: I expect that he will be, although the Treasurer might know more about that and be able to give a definite answer. I expect that, in order to be logical and consistent, when existing coinage is tendered the change will come in decimal coinage. Therein lies the real difficulty, namely, how to correlate the change with the old coinage when we are operating in multiples of pennies and obviously there are no decima1 coins of exact value.

As a matter of interest, I suppose every­body knows 1hat after February next there will be only two major countries not using decimal currency, namely, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The latter country is making all the necessary arrange­ments to convert to decimal currency by July 1967, and naturally will take advantage of the experience gained in Australia in the interim. Many of the technicians engaged in the Australian conversion will go to New Zealand. My information is that no specific arrangement for conversion has been made by the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Treasurer, as a matter of interest, can indicate how the English exchange will be affected

under the new currency, and what intentions, if any, there are in the United Kingdom to convert, and when.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (12.12 p.m.): Very soon, this step will have a bearing on the peace of mind of many people in the community. Although there have been numerous attempts to publicise the various advantages and disadvantages of conversion, personally I have yet to see anything printed in simple form that can be easily understood. I know it has been accepted in other parts of the world and naturally I am quite prepared to accept it, but I cannot go along completely with the cry that it will make things so much easier for school children.

I know from experience that, as far back as I can remember, my youngsters knew what they could get for Id., and, later on, for 3d. On the other hand, during my teaching experience I found considerable trouble in getting youngsters to put the decimal point in the right place when multiplying two sets of decimal figures. So I cannot accept as an advantage that it will be easier for children. I can appreciate that after a period of time, when children get used to it, it will not be any more difficult.

My main concern is with the action of some traders who, over the past few months, have been gradually increasing the prices of certain articles sold by them. This applies particularly to articles sold at a price that is not very high-for instance, articles sold at around ld., 2d., 3d. and 4d. These prices are being altered to suit the change-over to cents and I have noticed that quite a few of them, such as ice-blocks, buns, and so on, sold to children have increased even at this stage in order to bring their price in pennies into another range of decimal cur­rency. This has applied particularly in school canteens, with which I am conversant.

It has been very noticeable over a period of time that wholesalers have been gradually increasing prices and I think these actions should be watched very closely. I cannot agree with the action of any wholesaler or manufacturer who adjusts prices in such a way as to affect the cost of living or the standard of living. To do that at this stage without a full explanation to those who buy the articles is completely wrong.

I am sorry I did not bring with me today a letter that my wife received yesterday relative to the purchase of certain food items. At a quick glance it showed a substantial rise in price. During the second-~eading stag_e of the Bill I shall quote from It because It shows the trend that could be followed. Of course, the firm in question may be anticipat­ing a price rise owing to a rise in cost structure in its own business. I may not divulge its name.

It is also noticed that the price of fruit where it is sold in single pieces is increasing from 3d. to 4d. The Treasurer well knows that on conversion 3d. will become 2 cents

Decimal Currency Bill [2 DECEMBER] Decimal Currency Bill 2011

and 4d. will become 3 cents. That difference means a substantial amount to the trader. On checking a few fruit shops, I have found that for some time now the price of fruit is going up an extra penny. I bring that point to the notice of the Treasurer. It is a matter that I feel will have to be watched, particularly as Parliament will not be in session at the relevant time and the respon­sibility will fall on the Executive.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (12.17 p.m.): I desire to make a few brief remarks on this Bill. One of the points stressed by the Treasurer was the necessity of ensuring that there was no loss to the wage-earner following conversion to decimal currency. The Government sought, through its various committees, to establish the best method of approaching this problem of converting wage rates, both weekly and casual, without loss to the wage-earner. I think the Treasurer said that conversion will be made according to the exact decimal, which will ensure that there is no loss to the wage-earner.

Mr. Hiley: I added that the fraction of a cent will be eliminated by paying to the next highest cent.

Mr. S.HERRINGTON: I admit that what the Treasurer says is factual.

I think the conversion of the weekly wage will be a relatively simple matter because in effect there is a set amount which is paid each week. It will be easy to convert a set wage into decimal currency. However, the problem will creep in with the casual worker. A glance through some awards shows that various casual rates are determined at so many shillings and pence and points of a penny.

Mr. Aikens: That applies to anyone who is on an hourly rate.

lVIr. SHERRINGTON: It is the casual worker on an hourly rate. Difficulty will be enc?untere.d where cas~al rates on an hourly basis provide for a decimal point of a penny as part of the rate.

The Treasurer said that the committee thought the best way to tackle this problem was to convert the actual amount earned by multiplying the rate by the number of hours and then going to the next highest decimal point.

Mr. Aikens: A number of railwaymen work on the hourly-rate basis.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is true. Many people work on casual rates. I suppose a fa1r assessment of the position is that one­third of the population would still be employed on an hourly or casual-rate basis. On the surface it would seem that the method of arriving at the amount earned per week, and converting to the next highest even decimal figure, is a fair and just way of doing it. I have no quarrel at all with that.

I do not wish to be accused of tedious repetition, but I am concerned about the cumulative effect on the housewife of

increased prices. Normally she would have occasion to purchase about 250 items. I think that is a very conservative estimate.

Mr. Aikens: She would probably be "touched" on 200 of them.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is the point I am coming to.

I appreciate that in respect of the wage structure every effort is being made to see that conversion does not penalise the wage­earner, but I am concerned about how we can control the cumulative effect of the 250 items purchased by the housewife. If some items are converted to a higher decimal equivalent, of necessity, to protect tr~e house­wife's spending power and to balance the over-all cost, many of the others will have to convert at a lower decimal equivalent.

The Treasurer did not indicate to us what was to happen in the price structure of com­modities. I would have been interested to know at this stage whether the Government intends to enlist the services of the Prices Advisory Board-which, unfortunately, was axed by a former Minister-to determine what will be done to reduce the cumulative effect on the housewife. This is a real problem. I acknowledge that the conversion of wages is relatively simple but I am very disturbed, as are most people, about how the Government will control the cost of living as it relates to the wage structure.

Mr. Hanlon: You think the Industrial Com­mission will not consider the basic wage until five months after conversion day?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: This, again, pre­sents another problem. There is no doubt that trade and commerce generally have never been loath to grasp every opportunity to gain an advantage from any movements resulting from the action of a wage tribunal, or from budgetary proposals. I recall that only a few years ago a 12t per cent. conces­sion was granted in the Federai Budget. Ostensibly it was to assist the wage-earner, but unfortunately it was not passed on. Although the Federal Treasurer said specific­ally that one reason for the concession was to assist the smaller income-earner in the community, commerce found it an appro­priate time to say that the Treasurer's action had simply staved off an increase in prices.

I see a very grave danger in the effect of conversion on the cost of living as it relates to the wage structure. These two things cannot be divorced. I am not given to paying compliments; I think I am noted for that. However, on the surface it appears that the Treasurer, through his committee. has examined wages very closely and has tried to ensure that there will not be any penalising. I believe that, so far as parlia­mentary draftsmanship is able to do so by incorporating in the schedules the amounts by which the price of many things may be altered, instead of having to go through the

2012 Decimal Currency Bill [ASSEMBLY] Decimal Currency Bill

tedious process of bringing these matters before Parliament, the Government has taken a very good step.

I hoped that as the Treasurer had detailed what would happen to the wage structure, he would have made reference to what would happen to the price structure. I had hoped he would tell us that a committee had been working on this problem. If that is so, I should like him to indicate to that effect in his reply. If it is not so, then without any delay whatever an indication should be made that a committee, such as the Prices Advisory Board, which is com­posed of competent men, will be called together to determine how to control the cumulative effects of inc!'e·ases in decimal fractions on the various items the housewife is called upon to purchase. In the conversion to decima'l currency, the real problem is to control the cost of living, particularly in so far as it is associated with the wage structure.

Hon. 'Ir. A. HILEY (Chatsworth­Treasurer) (12.27 p.m.), in reply: I am grateful to the Committee for the way in which it has received this Bill. I do not want to take unnecessarily long on this matter, but may I, now that the matter has be·en raised, go on record as saying that I have no doubt whatever concerning the advantage of decimals to the community. Indeed, my only regret is that it was not a step taken in my youth ins{ead of at this stage of my life. I think the advantages to Australia could have been colossal had decimals been in practice in the period of its industrial growth 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I regard currency as the first important step. I do not think currency will exhaust the change. I think there will be others. Although I am personally inclined to the view that weights and volumes could follow in the predictable future, I am not sure about distances, and I will tell the Committee why. I see· no problem in kilogrammes replacing tons, hundredweights, quarters, and pounds, and litres replacing gallons, quarts, pints, and gills with all their con­fused mathematical] and varying concepts, because those things will touch price schedules, inventories, and packaging, and that is all. But with distances we run into a complicated question, and cut across all recorded land measures in the State. I do not know this with authority-! point out that this is simply something I have gathered -but I repeat it for what it is worth. I believe that Italy stat'ted to convert its method of land measurement to the decimal system 50 years ago and has not finished yet.

Mr. Dugg:an: Great Britain recommended decima1 currency in 1836.

Mr. HILEY: That is correct. It is impos­sible to turn the clock back. With matters of current usage, such as changing our currency, or changing from gallons to litres

or from tons to kilograms, there will be problems during the transition period; but because these things are in constant use we exhaust our old supplies and change to the new, and people's minds . adjust thems~lves and we go along unfiurneu. But wntten into every deed we have specific land measures which would have to be altered following conversion. Think of the untidy documents that would be left in their place! There would be no precise conversion for distances expressed in metres or millime•tres. By the time lengths in chains, yard~, and inches, and areas in acres, were adjusted, the whole thing would be in a very confus·ed state. In turn, if land that was the subject of such confusion was subdivided, omblems would be presented for all time. My instinctive and quite untutored reaction to this suggestion is that the application of the metric system to measures of weights and volumes could well oome within the life­time of many present today. However, its application to lengths and areas worrie-s me, and could produce knotty problems.

Mr. Hanlon: Half the Survey Office staff would probably resign overnight.

Mr. HILEY: Whilst computers might make the actual task of conversion simple, the results would still have to be stated, and, if they were checked, they would have to be measured. If a conversion gave a distance in metres to three or four places of decimals, that is where a boundary peg would have to be placed. I can foresee infinite difficulty with measurements, and I am wondering whether the old system has flowed along for so long that, to use a nautical term, the point of no return has been passed. That may be so; I do not know.

The Government is concerned with price rises that may be triggered off by conversion to decimal currency, and it is proposed to watch this situation closely. The "no net gain" approach to the matter ~s the g_oal_ of all but it is not capable of precise applicatiOn in 'every instance. A large store handling an infinite number of lines will be able to balance the pluses and the minuses. There will be a problem, however, for the man who sells low-cost items the prices of which are not precisely convertible to the new currency. I can foresee some difficulty in that type of business.

Mr. Sherrington: The trouble is that the housewife will have the cumulative effect of many small increases in a number of items.

Mr. HILEY: The woman who goes into a shop and buys 2 lb. of bananas will probably have no trouble; if she buys only 2 bananas. however, she may have some trouble. The woman who buys a dozen apples will prob­ably strike little trouble; the one who buys a single apple may have trouble, because one apple provides too little roo!TI for manoeuvre in order to secure correction.

Mr. Aikens: You think that over-all, the price of fruit in the one shop will be adjusted up or down to give all a fair go?

Decimal Currency Bill [2 DECEMBER] Decimal Currency Bill 2013

Mr. HILEY: If the merchandise is sufficiently varied, that can be done. I do not say it will be, but it can be. In the case of a specialised line of small units, it will be hard to do the "plusing" and "minusing" to balance out reasonably. All I can say is that we propose to watch this situation closely. The services of the Com­missioner of Prices will be used for this task, and I hope that hon. members will co-operate by directing attention where they feel it is warranted. I ask them to advise the Com­missioner of Prices of any cases in which they think improper and undue advantage is being taken of this change.

Mr. Sherrington: Won't you have to clothe the Commissioner of Prices with some administrative power to prevent it?

Mr. HILEY: Lines can always be declared. The Act is still in existence, and declarations can always be made if there is a need for them. I assure the hon. member that the Government will be watching this position closely. I think it will be realised that it is not possible to be completely precise in every instance. If some people do set out to make a "kill" in the currency conversion, the Government has to see that they, and not their customers, are the ones who are hurt.

Mr. Hanlon: They will have to watch the relative prices of packages, and so on.

Mr. HILEY: Exactly. My colleague the Minister for Labour and Industry has been saying some very tart things about packaging, and he has called many of the manufacturers together and told them what he believes are some of the worst features not only of prices but of deceptive packages. Some of the samples that he showed Cabinet recently were shocking. I thought they were some of the worst devices I had seen for fleecing an unwitting public, because it is easy to be carried away by the size of the package and its grandiloquent description.

Mr. Bromley: What about the size of that fish you caught?

Mr. IDLEY: If I had sold that, it would have been worth its weight in gold.

Mr. Aikens: Some of the packages amount to legal fraud.

Mr. HILEY: It is a nasty, disreputable practice. I think my colleague is correct in the tart observations he has made. He has spoken to representatives of the packaging industry and left them in no doubt about his displeasure relative to deceptive packaging and dishonset advertising which leads the public to believe that it is getting a better deal than it really is. I assure the Com­mittee that the spirit in which the Minister for Labour and Industry has approached that problem will be the spirit in which he will approach the problem of prices. If the Government finds that undue advantage

65

is being taken of the change-over, it will take action through the Commissioner of Prices.

Mr. Sherrington: Another feature is the marking-up of prices and the offering of discounts.

Mr. HILEY: I know there is a host of undesirable practices. I said something about the practice to which the hon. member has referred when the Bill dealing with hire­purchase was under discussion.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Lloyd, suggested that the Government should issue a State conversion table. There will not be any need for that, because the Commonwealth's power relative to currency, exchange and banking is absolute and the State has no power to pass a valid law. The proposed Bill is based on the fact that the Commonwealth Government has acted already. On 15 September, 1965, a Bill was brought down in the House of Repre­sentatives making provision for the exact equivalents table, which is already being used freely, particularly for instruction pur­poses. The Commonwealth law is in exist­ence; the proposed Bill is based on it.

In addition, the Commonwealth law will meet all the points raised by the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane because it deals with all the problems of the transitional period. It refers specifically to the period during which accounts may be stated in either form of currency and in which either form of cur­rency may be used as legal tender to settle accounts. I understand that the whole intention is that when £ s. d. currency is tendered it will be withdrawn from circula­tion as speedily as possible. Traders will be advised not to circulate it repeatedly, even during the transitional period, but to with­draw it from circulation.

Mr. Houston: Change will be given in decimal currency?

Mr. HILEY: That will be desirable, but there will not be enough inspectors to make sure that every shopkeeper does it. I think members of the public will be a bit chary of this. If they hand the shopkeeper a £1 note, they will expect to be given their change in decimal currency. For this reason, I do not think there will be any very big problems.

Mr. Bennett: It will be in the interests of the storekeeper to give change in decimal currency.

Mr. HILEY: It will be in the interests of everyone to shorten the transitional period as much as possible. It would be wonderful if decimal currency could be put into the hip pockets of all the customers immedi­ately. However, money is appearing already from all sorts of hidden and secret places. I can remember an occasion. at a place where I used to shoot snipe on the Logan River,

2014 Decimal Currency Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

when a man told me he had bought the next­door farm and was going to pay for it that morning. He took me into his barn, and there was the purchase price. Hon. members will know those old-fashioned tubs with a handle on each side. There was the purchase price in a mixture of florins, other silver and notes. It nearly filled the tub. It is not only the French who put their savings in the chimney stack.

Of necessity, and I think quite properly, the Commonwealth Government has pro­vided for a transitional period. Not to have had a transitional period, I think, would have been great folly. Plainly, money will come out later, and to have insisted that after a period, if the public wanted to change old currency they would have to go to a central bureau, would have been an unnecessary imposition and every citizen would have resented it. They would have asked, "Why can't we do this in the ordinary way by channelling it through the shops?"

I have no doubt that in the transitional period the change-over between old and new currency will come down in very sharp dips so that after a week the use of the old currency will drop to a small proportion. At the end of a month it will be smaller again but it will continue to dribble out in tiny amounts. I think that is inescapable and we have to recognise it.

Mr. Hanlon: Is there any time limit on your regulatory powers? Does the provision for these regulatory powers continue indefinitely, or is there a time limit on it?

Mr. HILEY: I would have to study that point. I do not think it is limited. It simply provides the means of correction to the extent that what we have done needs some added correction. We cannot impose any further burden, but if something has not shown out during the transitional period 1 should say it will show immediately after­wards. If the point of examination appears ~o be so!Uething that should carry a limit to Its exercise, that would be a principle that I for one, would quite readily accept. If the hon. member feels, after studying the Bill, that there should be a limit on the transitional period-say, until 30 September to give the n~w Parliament a chance to deal legislatively With the problem-! think that would suit admirably. I think if this power should be extended to 30 September next and no longer it would be a very proper provision and I would welcome it.

The hon. member for Kedron asked could we not peg prices so that the exact equival­ent in decimal currency applies. I suppose we could, but if the price of an article is free of any price control it can be increased at any time before "C" day. It can also be increased at any time after "C" day. So I do not think there would be any point in pegging it on the transitional day. The harm could happen before, and it could certainly happen after.

Mr. Houston: The harm is being done now.

Mr. HILEY: Exactly. I think the proper thing to do would be to ask the Commis­sioner of Prices to watch for any undue advantage that is being taken of the change­over now and after, as well as on, "C" day.

The hon. member for Bulimba expressed some doubt about the advantages of con­version. There was a very useful report to which his Leader made reference. It was issued by a committee set up, I think, back in the 1940's, of which the Rt. Hon. J. B. Chifley was a member. It was a most illuminating report. It would be in the Library. I think if the hon. member studied it, it would leave him in no doubt that decimal currency has immense advantages.

The hon. member doubted its advantages to school children. Experienced school­masters have told me that if decimals were applied to all things that have to be learned it could well save a year in the primary stages of mathematical teaching and still have students fully up to the present standard.

Mr. Houston interjected.

Mr. HILEY: The advantages do not stop at schools. I can assure hon. members that the use of decimal currency, particularly with the present-day mechanical aids, makes possible the recording of entries, the calcula­tion of prices, the multiplication of unit prices, the compilation of pay sheets, and various things of that character and is of great advantage. It becomes so facile with the use of decimals that I think the real advantages show up in industry itself.

Mr. Bromley: So there was a real advantage in doing away with the guinea?

Mr. HILEY: There was. I think that answers all the questions. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Motion (Mr. Hiley) agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Hiley, read a first time.

LEGAL ASSESTANOE BILL

INITIATION IN CoMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. P. R. DELAMOTHE (Bowen­Minister for Justice) (12.48 p.m.): I move--

"That a Bill be introduced to make legal assistance more readily available to persons of limited means, and for other purposes."

For too long has it been said-perhaps not altogether without some reason-that justice -the remedy of wrongs and the assertion of rights-has been rather the privilege of the wealthy and not the absolute right of all, both rich and needy.

With the passage of this Bill, such a state­ment can never again be made in Queensland. At the present time, Queensland is the only

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2015

State without a provision similar to that in the Bill. Indeed, this matter has been raised before the Standing Committee of the Commonwealth-States Attorneys-General with a view to having the provision introduced also by the Commonwealth in relation to Federal courts. The Standing Committee now awaits the receipt of material from each of the States, and the Commonwealth Attorney-General has undertaken to look into the matter when the material is available. In the meantime, in all the States, legal aid does take into its ambit actions within the Federal court.

I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not pay a tribute at this stage to the hon. member for Windsor.

Mr. Aikens: Where is he?

Mr. Bennett: Where is he? What about all I did over the years?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: I ask hon. members to wait a little, and not to interrupt.

Mr. Aikens: It's a wonder Bennett is not up there with him.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Dr. DELAMOTHE: I might say that, of my own knowledge, over the past eight to 10 years the hon. member for Windsor has been most avid to have such a measure introduced.

Mr. Bennett: He was not in Parliament eight or 10 years ago.

Mr. Thackeray: The Minister wasn't here himself. What is he talking about? He won't be here next year, either.

The CHAIRMAN: Order;

An Opposition Member: About eight to 10 years ago he was trying to join the Labour Party.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Dr. DELAMOTHE: The hon. member for Windsor has taken every path, parliamentary and otherwise, to stress the necessity for such action. I want to pay a similar tribute to the hon. member for South Brisbane. If he had not interrupted--

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. Hanlon: And to Mr. Duggan, who promised this in his 1957 policy speech.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind hon. members on my left that their interjections are becoming far too persistent. I ask them to refrain from interjecting. The Mini~ter is introducing a very important Bill. I, like most other hon. members, am very interested in its provisions.

Dr. DELAMOTHE: May I say at the outset that in the preparation of this legisla­tion the Government has necessarily worked in close association with the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queens­land, as this measure very closely affects both

organisations. The Bi!l as presented to the Chamber has the whole-hearted encourage­ment and full support of both organisations. We were fortunate, also, during the Com­monwealth and Empire Law Conference held recently in Sydney to have the opportunity of discussing various facets of the proposed legislation-which at that stage was in early drafting form-with a number of leading English lawyers then present in Australia, who are very experienced in this field and who themselves were very closely associated with the introduction of the legal aid scheme in England.

To mention just a few, first there was Mr. J. T. Moloney, Q.C., Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales, whose comments hon. members undoubtedly read recently in '"The Courier-Mail". Some hon. members may even have seen him adverting to it on a television session. There was also Mr. Derek Hilton, President of the Law Society in England, and Sir Thomas Lund, C.B.E., Secretary-General of the English Law Society. For the information of hon. members, may I add that Sir Thomas Lund was mainly responsible for the legal aid scheme as it exists in England today. I also had the privilege and benefit of entertaining at my home over a week-end Sir Elwyn Jones, Attorney-General of England. He was able to give me a very great deal of information on the working of the legal aid system in England.

All these lawyers of note expressed their unqualified approval of our proposed legal assistance scheme and stated quite frankly that they considered it superior to the one at present functioning in England.

Mr. Bennett: It would need to be.

Dr. DELAMOTHE: I am glad the hon. member for South Brisbane agrees.

Many parts of the British Commonwealth already have a legal assistance scheme in one form or another. I can assure hon. members that before this Bill was drafted each of these was carefully considered and analysed, not only by my officers in the Crown Law Office but also by representatives of the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland. I am confident that this Bill in its present form represents not only the best in all other legal aid schemes but a very considerable advance on legal assistance as it exists in any other part of the Commonwealth. Might I at this stage take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to all of those who have helped me and supported me with suggestions as to what should be included in the Bill.

For the information of hon. members, the Bill is divided into two main sections. The first section deals with legal assistance and the manner in which such legal assistance will be provided. The second section deals with the means by which the cost of providing such assistance will be defrayed.

The portion of the Bill dealing with legal assistance follows generally the pattern of the English legislation on the same subject,

2016 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

which has already been tried out, and for the most part proved, over the last decade. Certain features which, upon investigation, were found to be not altogether satisfactory have been deleted. A number of others which commended themselves to me have been introduced.

In regard to legal assistance, there are two outstanding features. Firstly, to be a participant and to receive legal assistance under this scheme, not only must an individual qualify financially but he must also satisfy the governing committee that he has a reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be. This is one of the reasons why, at the present time in any event, criminal work and certain other types of litigation have been excluded from the ambit of the legislation. But provision has been made for the extension over a wider and wider field.

Mr. Hanlon: Does it exclude libel and slander claims, as it does in England?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: Yes. The exceptions in the Bill are pretty well as they are in the English Act.

In England, for instance, it has been found that the courts are consistently cluttered up by a plethora of criminal trials where persons who have no scintilla of a defence whatsoever avail themselves of the best legal brains in the country, mostly at no charge what­soever to themselves, solely because it is free, and in many instances also with a view to postponing the evil day of judgment. It has never been intended that Queensland should become a welfare State of this character.

Mr. Bennett: Don't you agree with the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: The hon. member for South Brisbane is always too impatient. He should wait and hear what is in the next paragraph.

Queensland already has a Public Defender and a Poor Prisoner's Defence Act whereby legal assistance and legal representation are granted by the Government in circumstances where it is considered desirable and necessary.

The second vital feature of legal assistance in Queensland is the perpetuation of the solicitor-and-client relationship.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Dr. DELAMOTHE: No person will be required to seek legal advice or representa­tion from a lawyer other than one of his own choosing simply because he is in receipt of legal assistance. In other words, he wi'll exercise the same choice where legal aid is providing the funds as he would if he were providing his own funds.

Turning to the cost of implementing the legal assistance scheme, I may say that the whole of this aspect of the legislation stems

from proposals submitted to the Government by the Queensland Law Society, and accept­ance of the proposals wi'll result in legal assistance in Queensland becoming avail­able to the public at virtually no cost what­ever to the taxpayers.

As all hon. members know, there is a considerable sum of money at all times in solicitors' trust accounts which, up to the present time earns nothing for anybody. It attracts no interest, and consequently no-one is advantaged by the fact that these trust funds are in existence.

Mr. Hanlon: Except the banks.

Dr. DELAMOTHE: Yes. Most of the amounts of money in solicitors' trust accounts are moderately small and are held for a very short time, with, of course, exceptions in certain circumstances. Consequently it is absolutely impracticable to place this multi­tude of small amounts held for short periods in either savings bank accounts or fixed deposits where they might earn interest for the time being for the persons beneficially entitled to them. The cost of the book work involved alone would be out of all proportion to any advantage gained.

The exceptions occur for the re~son that there can be so much variety in the trans­actions handled by a solicitor, as they cover the whole gamut of human activity. The actual turnover of such accounts in any one year would be huge, but there are always some more or less permanent sums in each solicitor's trust account as distinct from the moneys invested on clients' instructions in respect of which the client receives the totaa interest thereon. This, in Queensland, aggregates several millions of pounds, and it is on portion of this amount-the Bill provides for half of the lowest balance in any year-that it is proposed to legislate to enable interest thereon to be paid not to any individual solicitor but to the Queensbnd Law Society Incorporated, to be distributed by the socie•ty in the manner proposed in the Bill.

For the information of hon. members, I point out that there is nothing revolutionary in this idea. Similar legislation has already been in force in Victoria since April of last year. The proposals put forward by the Queensland Law Society, which have been incorporated in the proposed legislation, have emanated from the society's desire to ensure that any person who might suffer a ~oss as a result of the defalcation of any solicitor is fully recompensed for such loss. Accord­ingly the Queensland Law Society suggested that the amount of the Lega!l Practitioners Ede!ity Guarantee Fund, which, for the information of hon. members, the Act now provides shall be maintained at not less than the sum of £50,000, should be increased to and maintained at not less than £300,000.

For many years legal practitioners have contributed, and are still contributing, to a fund established by the society for the reim­bursement of clients where defalcations have

Legal Assistance Bill (2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2017

occurred in relation to trust moneys. How­ever, as the contributions may not always provide sufficient moneys to enable full com­pensation to be achieved, the society has asked that 50 per cent. of the interest to be paid on solicitors' trust accounts be set aside to build up and maintain such sum of £300,000. The balance of 50 per cent. of the interest is to be applied towards financing the legal assistance scheme.

Mr. Lloyd: That means you are going to use the clients' money to finance the legal aid scheme?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: Yes, to finance the two legs-the fidelitY guarantee and the legal aid.

In Victoria, as hon. members know, that system has been used for the fidelity guar­antee fund for the last 18 months.

In referring to the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Guarantee Fund, I should like to give hon. members a little of the history of this legislation. The fund was set up in 1930, at the request of the profession, under the Queensland Law Society Amendment Act of 1930. The fund has been built up by annual contributions from every practising solicitor in Queensland and has been avail­able to compensate persons who have suf­fered loss as a result of a defalcation in trust moneys. Each solicitor is required to have his trust account audited half-yearly by an approved auditor, and a copy of such audit is sent to the Department of Justice. No solicitor may practise unless he holds a current practising certificate, which is issued by the Queensland Law Society after considering the auditor's report.

Mr. Lloyd: What are his contributions to this fund?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: He pays an annual amount.

It is obvious that in any profession or occu­pation there will always be a few who fail to live up to the required standard, and it must be admitted that there has been a small percentage of such people in the legal profession. However, I am pleased to say that such percentage is indeed extremely small. What has concerned the Council of the Queensland Law Society is that at pre­sent the maximum liability of the fidelity fund in respect of any one practitioner is £15,000. As a result of this, there has been at least one instance where reimbursement in full has not been possible.

Mr. Bennett: That was a £30,000 effort, wasn't it?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: Yes. There is another one much larger than that. I do not think the total amount has yet been established. However, if the proposals put forward by the Council of the Queensland Law Society for augmenting the assets of the fund become law, it is expected that henceforth any claims that might be made can be recompensed in

full, and it was this that actuated the Queens­land Law Society in asking the Government to amend the legislation in the manner pro­vided in the Bill, which follows closely what has been done relative to the fidelity guar­antee fund in Victoria.

It must also be borne in mind that before the fidelity fund is called on at all, the whole of the personal assets of a solicitor and his partners-if he has partners-must first be exhausted in making good any default. This is a primary responsibility and a liability which is often overlooked by critics of the profession. Lawyers are not able to form themselves into limited companies in order to carry on their practices or to protect themselves from liability. It is well known that in the case of limited liability companies there is no guarantee fund.

I can also speak for members of the medical profession as well in saying that they likewise cannot incorporate themselves. Professional men generally do not enjoy any of the advantages of incorporation that are available to so many business people. Incorporation has the distinct advantage of limiting liability, and in those cases where liabilities exceed assets there is no guarantee fund to make up the difference.

In regard to the machinery provisions of the Bill, these have been drafted in such a way as to cause the least possible interruption to a solicitor's normal business activities. On or before the 21st day of January, 1966, every solicitor will be required to deposit with the Queensland Law Society not less than one half of the lowest balance in his trust bank account, or his firm's trust bank account, at any time during the year ended 31 December, 1965. So that, as on 1 January next, every solicitor in Queensland will deposit in the name of the Queensland Law Society half of the lowest balance that he had in his trust account during this year, which is just terminating.

All the moneys so deposited will be immediately repayable to the solicitor on call. Pending repayment, the Law Society will invest the money either with a bank or with the State Treasury, and the interest will be paid in the manner I have outlined.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the bank will pay the interest once each year?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: More frequently than that; probably once a quar.ter.

Mr. Hughes: I think you said you take the lowest balance at the end of the year.

Dr. DELAMOTHE: That is the starting point-to take half of the lowest balance during the whole of 1965.

The Law Society will also make arrange­ments whereby a solicitor may meet his obligations by depositing the money through a branch of the bank in which he keeps his trust account. The money so deposited will be invested by the Law Society with that

2018 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

bank, thus preserving the existing banker­customer relationship, which I consider very important.

Amicable discussions have taken place between the banks in Queensland, the Council of the Queensland Law Society, and myself on this matter and should at any time the banks be unwilling to pay interest on the basis provided in the Bill the Treasury itself has intimated that it is prepared to accept this money for investment. Of course, the existing legislation requiring a half-yearly audit of all solicitors' trust accounts will not alter.

In conclusion, may I stress to the Com­mittee that I believe the standard of the legal profession in Queensland has always been remarkably high. This, of course, is as it should be; lawyers are in a particular position of confidence so far as their clients are concerned, and it is good that there have been so few cases of a falling down in these standards.

I am glad that the proposed legislation comes to the Committee at the instigation of the Queensland Law Society itself, which body has taken great interest in it. Actions such as this demonstrate ~he independence of the profession, and this I consider most important. Hon. members who have studied the position in other countries will agree, I am sure, that it is in countries where the rule of law no longer prevails that chaos reigns today, and this position has obtained because the legal profession has in such countries lost its independence.

In again repeating my thanks to all those who have helped me, I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. BENNEIT (South Brisbane) (2.30 p.m.): The Minister, when introducing the Bill, said the question of legal aid was con­sidered at the Third Commonwealth and Empire Law Conference which was held this year. It is true that the attendance at that law conference was no less than 1,611 dele­gates, all of whom agreed that most of the countries represented there had similar problems in law, not the least of which was the need for increased legal aid.

It is obvious that the A.L.P. in Opposition agrees completely with the proposal to pro­vide some form of legal aid in Queensland. When we examine closely the minor details of the Bill, we may voice considerable dis­agreement as to the method, but the principle has the wholehearted approbation of the Opposition.

As a matter of fact, it was the A.L.P. in Queensland which instigated consideration of legal aid by placing it in its policy for the 1957 State elections and it has remained in our policy since. At that time the suggestion was opposed by the then Country-Liberal Government.

The introduction of the Bill gave the Opposition a great deal of pride and satis­faction. We believe we are solely and

entirely responsible for it in that our vigorous endeavours have led to its inclusion in legislation.

As a matter of fact, I had not heard anyone in this Parliament advocating legal aid until I made my entry here, and at every available opportunity asked for its imple­mentation.

Mr. Smith: I mentioned it long before that. If the hon. member for South Brisbane would have a look at my speech on 28 September, 1957, he will see that.

Mr. BENNEIT: He is not the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gaven): Order!

Mr. BENNEIT: I am prepared to concede that from time to time I have been supported in my endeavours to some extent by the hon. member for Windsor. I can only conclude that the implementation of legal aid would not have been considered on the endeavours of the hon. member for Windsor because the Government do not consider him to be Cabinet material.

The great majority of countries within the British Commonwealth have already imple­mented legal aid. We have been lagging far behind throughout the years.

It is true, as has been argued, that the cost of litigation is great. Lt is even expensive for those who have the wherewithal to engage in it. I do not share the opinion expressed here from time to time-subject to some exceptions, of course-that legal men in Queensland have been charging more than is fair, just and reasonable for their services. They provide skilful service. They have to pay for an expensive 1aw course of at least six years, at a period in life when some other young men and women are earning in the vicinity of £2,000 to £3,000 a year. Law students during the course have to live on pocket money and still have to pay expensive fees. They have to maintain expensive equipment for the complex office procedures of this modern world. To be expert, a barrister or counsel must have an expensive library. He must buy it in the first place and must then maintain it, and ,the cost of a library is colossal. He then has to purchase the yearly law reports, and reports from various countries, to adequately equip himself to do justice to his client. Before a barrister makes a profit he has to meet the very large overhead cost of a legal practice. Someone has to pay the colossal costs. It is true that many clients cannot afford to pay and, in the past, they have had to be catered for or looked after by kind and charitable practitioners. I do not know what the hon. member for Windsor has done, but over the years I have given considerable assistance in this field. The introduction of the Bill will relieve me of a considerable burden because the number of those who cannot afford to pay for legal aid is increasing daily. Complicated and complex legal procedure is a factor that makes litigation expensive, apart altogether

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2019

from the cost of equipment, an expensive library and office accommodation. It has evolved over the centuries and is accepted in the same way as antiquated legal pro­cedures are accepted in the parliamentary field, where we are sometimes inclined to rely too much on empty technicalities which prevent us from getting at the real merits of a case. A substantive action could very easily be lost on technicalities if legal pro­cedure was not complied wHh. If they were less complicated and more easily under­stood, and if there was co-operation between the legislature and those implementing and practising the law, the cost of litigation could be reduced considerably. That is the finding of men in conference who have closely studied the situation.

In order to practise law one should not have to be a "smartie" who relies on some technicality to defeat the just arguments of an opponent. Similarly, parliamentarians should be aUowed to discuss a claim and come to a truthful conclusion on it, especially if 1ts solution affects the welfare of all Queens­landers, without being subject to the reminder that, because of some technicality in Erskine May, we cannot ask a particular question which, although 1t might bring forth the truth and so help the welfare of Queens­land, might embarrass some Minister or the Government. Because of these antiquated, archaic procedures, we are not allowed to get on with the job and get to the guts of the case. That happens very often in law, too. The artificial procedures in Parliament and legislation should be abandoned immediately. Litigation is made expensive mainly because of the complicated procedures and involved documents that have to be filed in courts, particularly the Supreme Court, before the essential merits of the case can be considered by the court. Artificial rules of evidence that have been preserved over the years provide that interrogatories have to be filed in order to get the evidence to present in court. If a case comes on for hearing before the neces­sary preliminaries are complied with, a barrister may find that he is unable to do justice to his client because he is unable to introduce evidence essential to his case.

While I commend the Minister for intro­ducing a Bill that will enable people who otherwise would be financially disqualified to go to court, I also ask him to do something immediately to improve and simplify the procedure of getting into court. I concede that delay sometimes occurs in the hearing of claims for personal injury because in the interests of the litigant medical evidence must be obtained and presented.

The Minister said that the legislation is framed on the system of legal aid in England. By interjection I said that I sincerely hoped that the Bill is better than the English Act, because that Act has some severe limitations, particularly relative to the financial category of people who are entitled to legal aid. Despite these strict and severe limitations, in 1963 practitioners in the divorce field alone were paid no less than £2,782,000

in fees under the legal aid scheme, a staggering figure. Imagine, by way of interest, what the divorce rate must be-if we include those who go to court at their own expense!

Without having had an opportunity to consider it fully, I agree that there seems to be every justification for financing this system of legal aid, as it were, on the interest from solicitors' trust accounts and fidelity funds. In the first place, if such interest was to be paid to anybody, I suppose the only category which would be entitled to it would be the clients who provide the money. But the difficulty in deciding how the amount should be divided among clients would make such a course impracticable. In any case by the time it was divided up it would not be of much value to the individual clients. I therefore concede that the financing of this scheme from this interest seems reasonably justifiable. On the other hand, I cannot refrain from the observation that financially the biggest beneficiary from this scheme will be the bank which has the Queensland Law Society as its client.

The Minister's remarks in introducing the Bill clearly reveal one great weakness in legal aid in the criminal field. Most of those who require legal aid are persons who are charged in the criminal court. In British Commonwealth countries an accused person is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. That principle has applied for centuries, and therefore we should not look upon an accused person as a criminal or as a person undeserving of assistance merely because he is charged, because many accused persons are eventually found not guilty. From the remarks of the Minister, one could be pardoned for thinking that he believes that many persons who are not convicted are not innocent and that, if free legal aid is provided in criminal juris­diction, many who otherwise would plead guilty will plead not guilty. I understand that to be the Minister's feeling from the remarks that he made, and I do not doubt it. After all, if the fine principle of British justice that I have already mentioned is to be preserved, why should not accused persons call upon the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? The fact that a man has no money is no reason why he should not have the same advantage in our society as a man with money.

Quite often in criminal jurisdiction in the lower courts people plead guilty to offences because, to their way of thinking, it is cheaper and more expeditious to do so and get it over with than to pay the expense of a defence. Often they find, to their chagrin, that after they have pleaded guilty they lose their employment, and their criminal records can cause them very much greater loss than the comparatively small fines imposed on them.

The Minister said that the present system in criminal jurisdiction will not be altered. Let it be understood that in my opinion the present Public Defender in Queensland is outstanding in the criminal field.

2020 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

Incidentally, his record and qualifications are so well respected that he is hopelessly overworked. Under the present system he has no say in who will obtain legal aid. He may appear for a client who he believes has been wrongfully convicted in the Criminal Court. He may consider that he has a particularly sound case for appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but he has not the right to decide whether legal aid will be granted for the purpose. The decision is made by the Crown Law Office, which is responsible for the prosecution. A principle is that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done, and many times legal men are of the opinion that the Crown Law Office, when considering whether legal aid is warranted, looks at the matter from the point of view of the Crown rather than that of the accused. If the Public Defender, or some other independent authority, had the right to say who was to be granted legal aid, perhaps more people would obtain it.

Another defect in the system is that, although Crown legal officers are making inquiries and obtaining the necessary instructions, preparation work is not being done in the office of the Public Defender. On numerous occasions the decision to grant legal aid has been made at the last minute, and the Public Defender has been informed of that fact as late as the morning of the trial. What chance has he then to do justice to his client? I instance the recent case of a boy who was convicted when 16 years of age and who is now serving five years at Boggo Road gaol. The time between the granting of legal aid and representation in his case was so short that his parents were not even interviewed before the trial. It might have made some difference; very often it does make a difference.

Mr. Lloyd: Is he prevented from applying for an adjournment?

Road. There are defects in the present system, and the Public Defender is in no way to blame for them.

Leaving out the delays, the time factor, the short time for preparation and the natural impediments and handicaps of the system, under the existing legal aid scheme no person in Queensland is entitled to representation on a criminal charge heard in the lower court jurisdiction. For instance, let us assume that a railway man is charged with a stealing offence. The Minister might argue that he should have the where.withal to provide his own defence; but he might have a large family or other commitments that prevent him from doing so. In fact, whether he is a railway man or not, let us assume that he is charged with a stealing offence that is regarded as being indictable but. which is dealt with in the lower court. This year a lad porter on a very low scale of wages was dealt with in the lower court. He pleaded guilty, probably because of a lack of funds and he was convicted and fined the meagre ~urn of £5. One would think th~t no serious injustice had been done, that his career would not be affected unduly when he was dealt with in the lower court, because the Criminal Code says that he is deemed to have been dealt with for a simple offence when he elects to be dealt with summarily. However, the department found out that he had been convicted and he was sacked immediately. That young lad, who had ma~e all the necessary preparations for a career m the railways, was not only fined £5 but also lost his career. In saying that .t~e pr~se1_1t svstem will be preserved, the Mm1ster Is m effect denying to all defendants who are dealt with in lower courts the right to legal repre­sentation under the legal aid scheme.

Mr. BENNETT: There is always a right to apply for an adjournment, but the decision of the judge is entirely discretionary. Some judges will say, "Yes, you can have an adjournment in the circumstances." On the other hand, recently a defending counsel told a judge well known in the criminal field that he had received his brief only 10 minutes before and asked for an adjourn­ment of the case to another day, and the judge refused his application. He then asked for an adjournment till the afternoon, so that he could read his brief and interview his prospective witnesses, and the judge said, "You can have an adjournment for an hour." It depends on which judge hears the case and the attitude that he adopts in regard to doing justice to the accused. However, no criminal defence lawyer can do justice to his client with an hour's preparation of his brief, and, as I said, that was forced upon one counsel within the last month and his client is now serving time at Boggo

The Minister also said that this will not relate to the criminal field, that it :--vm be based on the English procedur~ and will hav.e more or less the same exemptions.. If that IS

so, the exemptions will be: pro~eedmgs wholly or partly in respect of defamation (that means that if someone defames you, you cannot take any action to preserve your good name), breach of promise of marriage, loss of ser­vices of a woman or girl in consequence ?f her rape (that is not very common m Queensland), and the inducement of one spouse to leave or remain ap~rt from the other; relator actions; proceedmgs for . the recovery of a penalty where the proceedmgs may be taken by any person a1_1d .the pen~lty is payable to the actual plamt!ff; elec~10n petitions (that means that an Impecumous candidate who contends that he has been unjustlv dealt with will not be .a?Ie ~o get any legal assistance under t?e Mmister s pro­nosa]): and certain other mc1dental and mmor ~xemptions.

What is the Minister's proposal relative to quasi criminal actions such as offences under the Traffic Act? Will the offenders or t~e defendants be allowed to apply for legal aid

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2021

or will it be argued that they are in the criminal field and therefore ineligible for legal aid?

The Minister has said that if this scheme were extended into the criminal field there would be a plethora of defendants. If he is sincere in his desire to give everybody a fair go in court, in what way would it matter if there was a plethora of defend­ants? Is the Minister, by his remarks, tacitly admitting that many people at present plead guilty because they cannot afford to do otherwise? If the Minister does say that, then I will agree that often happens.

(Time expired.)

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (2.56 p.m.): Let me say at the outs·et that I agree with this Bill as being very desirable, and even noble, in conception, but the adminis­tration of it when it becomes law could throw the door wide open to some of the greatest rorts and rackets that have ever been worked in this State.

I should like the Minister for Justice to tell the Committee a little more clearly than he did in his introductory speech just how it is proposed, when this legislation becomes 'law, to separate the sheep from the goats in determining who specifically is to be granted legal aid and, I presume, legal representation in the courts at the taxpayers' expense, and those who are to be refused legal aid and representation in the courts at the taxpayers' expense.

We know very well that if it is to be left to the lawyers, and the· lawyers are to preponderate on the proposed governing committee, how the 'taxpayers will fare. Lawyers wHJ tell anyone that when a client come-s to see them in criminal jurisdiction it is not their function to determine his guilt or innocence. In fact, many lawyers quite openly and frankly admit that in some cases before they went into court to defend a man on a criminal charge they knew he was guilty.

Mr. Bennett: That does not dis-entitle the client to a defence.

Mr. AIKENS: They will say that even though they knew the client was guilty, they went into court to ensure that he could avai'l himself of every loophole and subter­fuge in the law by which he could escape a guilty verdict and then, even though a guilty verdict is rendered by the jury, they claim it is their function to stand up before the court and at times lie, wittingly or unwittingly, in an effort to prevail on the presiding judge to make the punishment as light as possible. I cited instances of this previously in this Chamber and I am not going to recapitulate whai I said then.

Will this be a Bill-an Act of Parliament -to allow lawyers to dip their rapacious and greedy fingers deep into the taxpayers' pocket in order to represent in court men whom they know, and we know, are guilty before the case is heard.

Mr. Bennett: There is no taxpayers' money involved in the scheme. Didn't you listen to the introduction?

Mr. AIKENS: Who will provide the funds to pay the lawyers to defend these people? Don't te'll me it will come out of the lawyers' pockets?

Mr. Bennett: It will come out of estab­lished trust accounts and the fidelity fund.

Mr. AIKENS: If it comes out of the trust account or the fidelity fund, it still comes out of the people's pockets in the first place.

Mr. Smith: It won't come out of the fidelity fund; that is for certain.

Mr. AIKENS: Here is an argument between lawyers already. There are only two lawyers in this Chamber and, for a wonder, they are both here at the one time. The hon. member for South Brisbane says the money to defend these people wi'll come out of the fidelity fund; the hon. member for Windsor, who also is a lawyer, says it will not, so we have no unanimity of opinion on that short but important point from the only two lawyers in the Committee. If the Minister for Justice knows it, he has not disclosed it; not to my knowledge, anyway.

We are the representatives of the tax­payers. That is a point I am always hammering home in this Chamber. I hammered it home in legislation that went through the House yesterday. I hammered it home in regard to the university. It is our job to represent all the people of this State, as covered by the general term "tax­payers", because they are the people who keep Parliament going. They are the people who keep us going, and they are the people who also keep going all these funds that are being set up and all these processes that are being brought about by the Govern­ment.

If a person has been charged with an offence which he claims he has not com­mitted and he is too poor to go to a lawyer and to pay for that lawyer out of his own pocket, then the body set up under this legislation should be firmly convinced that that person is not guilty, or at least that there is a serious doubt about his guilt. He should be given the legal representation and legal aid he desires, but how are we going to do it? Are we going to establish a means test, for instance?

We know that before a person is sent from a country hospital as a public patient to a specialist at a public hospital in Bris­bane, he has to pass a means test imposed by the Department of Health before he can be issued with a pass to go, say, from Townsville to Brisbane for that specialist attention which is not available at the Townsville General Hospital, but which is available at the Brisbane General Hospital although the specialist at the Townsville General Hospital is sending that patient down from Townsville--

2022 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

Mr. Bemrett: What has that got to do with this Bill?

Mr. AIKENS: It is exactly the same thing. The Department of Health decides whether that person is in a position to pay his own fare from Townsvil!e to Brisbane and back.

Mr. Bennett: In this case two solicitors appointed by the Queensland Law Society, together with the Crown Law Office, will decide whether legal aid should be made available. Isn't that fair enough?

Mr. AIKENS: Everything the hon. member for South Brisbane says is quite obtuse. I guarantee he himself does not understand what he says.

What means test is to be applied? I am not concerned with whether these lawyers or someone else on the proposed committee determines whether or not a person requires legal aid. What means test is to be applied? How can these people say that Bill J ones is entitled to legal aid because his financial circumstances will not permit him to pay for a barrister and a solicitor out of his own pocket, and in the next breath that Tom Smith is not entitled to legal aid because he can afford to pay a barrister and a solicitor out of his own pocket? What financial means test is to be applied?

Mr. Bennett: Haven't you read the English Act?

Mr. AIKENS: I have some comments to make on the English Act. If the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane could be embarrassed, which I very much doubt, I will read extracts from it, if I have the time. I know it is almost impossible to embarrass the hon. member for South Brisbane, and absolutely impossible to embarrass the hon. member for Windsor, but if they want some comments on the English Act I will read extracts to them, if I have the time. They are quite relevant. They appear in the very fine English news­paper known as "The London Economist". I guarantee that if both hon. members have a vestige of conscience at all they will skulk out of this Chamber.

Mr. Bennett: One has.

Mr. AIKENS: Whether he has retired or skulked out, of course, is a matter of opinion.

What financial means test is to apply? Is it to be determined-! use hypothetical names -that Bill Smith is entitled to legal aid because of his financial circumstances, but that Tom Jones is not? That is the point. If we are to have a means test such as that applied by the Department of Health rela­tive to patients who travel from Townsville to Brisbane for specialist attention at the public hospital, then I am bitterly opposing it.

I want to know where this legal aid depart­ment will operate. Is it to be another bit of "grease" for the fat Brisbane pig? Will it

operate, for instance, in Townsville? Will it operate in Cloncurry, Cooktown, Birdsville, Betoota, and Bedourie? Will it operate in the far-flung corners of this State where men are men, and from where the wealth of this great State comes? If so, how will it operate there? If a man is charged at Camooweal with a criminal offence, where will he go for free legal aid? Will he go to the local constable?

Mr. Bennett: He will approach the Law Society?

Mr. AIKENS: If he does, he is finished before he starts; he is convicted and robbed, all in the one movement, and, if he approaches the Bar Association, he will be in a worse pickle still.

In all seriousness, I should like the Minister to elaborate on this point. What is to happen to the men about whom I am concerned, those in the far-flung corners of this State who keep this great big rat-warren of a Brisbane going?

I can say this to the Minister for Justice because we are fortunate in having as Minister for Justice a person who is not a member of the predatory legal profession. Of course, he is a doctor of medicine, and no-one knows better than he that when there is free dispensation of pills and medicine some people will drink all the medicine they can get and swallow all the pills they can get as long as they are free. We know, too, and I suppose the hon. members for South Brisbane and Windsor do-and I should like to place on record the hon. member's return to the Chamber for a brief period-that some people are litigation happy. Whenever any­thing happens to them, if they have the necessary money they run to a lawyer. In Townsville they do not run to the lawyers because they have to pay for them; they come to me and get free advice-and better advice-for nothing. However, we know that some people are litigation happy.

Mr. Bennett: You make them unhappy, too.

Mr. AIKENS: I may make them unhappy but I do not impoverish them. If they went to the hon. member for South Brisbane, not only would they be made unhappy but they would also be made bankrupt by the time he finished with them.

Mr. Bennett: Tell us what you did with the man you won the Casket with.

Mr. AIKENS: Con Davidson was a very good old friend of mine. Later, when he became a pensioner I helped him, by advice, in a small way, and was happy to help. He asked me one day to take a Casket ticket with him. I gave him 10s. and that was the last I heard of it until it won. However, being an honest man-and I cannot say here that the hon. member for South Brisbane is dishonest-he gave me my share of the prize.

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2023

Mr. Bennett: Fancy taking it from a pensioner!

Mr. AIKENS: I should not like to take a ticket in the Casket with the hon. member for South Brisbane. I know where I would finish if it won first prize. If the hon. member goes to Mt. Isa-and I suppose he will on one of his two free trips, with 10 days' expenses, at five guineas a day-he will see the Davidson shaft, which was named after this old western pioneer with whom I was happy, and very lucky, to win the Casket, and he could then inquire of the work Con has done.

However, supposing this man had not won the Casket and he was still out in the West at Mt. Isa and was charged with some offence. How would he get on? Would he go to the clerk of the court, or would he have to sit down and write a letter to the committee established here?

Mr. Bennett: They can write to me.

Mr. AIKENS: They would not get a reply unless they sent the money down-and a 5d. stamp. They would also have to send the fees down in advance.

As representatives of the taxpayers we are entitled to know something about this pro­posal. How are we to separate the sheep from the goats in deciding who should be represented? How are we to separate the sheep from the goats in deciding who should and who should not, be assisted financially? It is in this aspect of the administration of the Bill that all the rackets and rorts could occur. I know, of course, that lawyers are concerned with two things, and two things only. I have never yet met a lawyer who has been concerned with justice. I have known many lawyers and barristers who have been concerned with only two things: firstly, winning the case for their client by any means at their disposal, and, secondly, exacting the fattest legal professional fees from him. They have been concerned with the "dough" and the win, never with justice, whereas I am concerned with justice. I want justice done to the poor people, and every person who is poor and cannot afford a lawyer should get legal assistance under this Bill. I should like to know how he will get it, and, more particularly, I should like to know who will not get it. If the Minister can tell me, I shall be quite happy.

Here is something else I would be happy to know. I shall quote from an article which appeared in "The London Economist".

Mr. Bennett: That is one way of filling in time.

Mr. AIKENS: I know this will be embar­rassing to the hon. member for South Brisbane, and if it were possible to wound him he will be wounded. It reads--

"English lawyers are proud of their unquestioned integrity; but they stick too faithfully to their questionable traditions.

"Of all professional people lawyers are best at defending themselves from outside criticism, and worst by far at the craft of self-examination.

"These are the strict division between barristers and solicitors (the opposite of which is known as 'fusion') and the sub­division of barristers into junior and lead­ing counsel (The Queen's Counsel, or 'silks') who are picked to act as specialists in advocacy. A weird and powerful protocol fences round the functions of these three types of practitioner. English lawyers look quite shocked when reminded that in the United States and elsewhere a lawyer is a lawyer (if he is not a politician)."

Here we have lawyers and politicians, much to our discomfort. How can they devote their time to their law practices and all the various other duties they perform for high remunerations?

Mr. Bennett: What about yourself?

Mr. AIKENS: I devote 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, to being a good and successful politician.

Another paragraph is headed-the heading is appropriate to the hon. member for South Brisbane and the hon. member for Windsor­"Moaning at the Bar." The article con­tinues-

"The way that rules get confused with principles can be illustrated by the two practices which the barristers, goaded by the Law Society's memorandum, met to discuss on Thursday afternoon. The first, and least defensible of all, is the rule whereby a junior barrister appearing with a silk automatically receives two-thirds of his leader's fee (the 'two-thirds' rule) whether or not he has done work on anything like this scale. (This rule can be waived for leaders' briefs of over 100 guineas but in practice seldom is.) This interlocks neatly with the second rule under discussion, which forbids a QC to appear in court without a junior (the two counsel rule), even if the client would prefer to pay for the services of one lawyer rather than two. Need for the QC to be backed by a junior is created-but not, as the Bar Council would have it, justified-by the formal role as an advocate conferred upon him when he took silk. But it is litigants, not lawyers, who have to pay the price for a formal label as distinct from a functional role."

That is the point I want to make. It is the lawyers themselves, not the client, not the Government, and not the people, who have

2024 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

set this rule. This morning I gave notice of a question which I shall ask the Minister tomorrow. I should like to know if under this Biii, it is proposed at times to ~mploy a Q.C. to defend a person. If it is proposed to employ a Q.C., are the people of Queens­land to be mulcted to the extent that under the rule made by the lawyers-not this Parliament or the people-a Q.C. cannot ~PP.ear in court without a junior, and the Jumor, even though he is only a book carrier-most juniors are nothing more or less than book carriers-must be paid two­thirds of the Q.C.'s fee? If a Q.C. is briefed at a fee of 150 guineas, the book carrier must be paid 100 guineas. If the Q.C. marks his brief, "100 guineas a day refresher," the book carrier must also be paid 66} guineas a day refresher.

Mr. Bennett: You haven't got to brief a Q.C. if you don't want to.

Mr. AIKENS: No, but I want to know from the Minister for Justice if it is proposed to brief Q.C.'s under this Bin. I want to know if it is intended, even under extra­ordinary circumstances, to brief Q.C.'s to defend any person. If that is to be done, we wiii be assisting the legal fraternity to mulct and fleece the people of Queensland under this preposterous rule which has been laid down by the legal profession itself and which is now under review in England. The legal profession in England is in such bad odour with the people and the Press that it is now taking steps to put its house in order. I do not know if that will ever be done in Queensland, but the time is rotten ripe for it now. If it is not done, Parliament will have to do something about it.

When the Minister replies, I should like him to deal with the points I have mentioned. The sheep and the goats--

Mr. Bennett: You are repeating yourself now.

Mr. AIKENS: As a matter of fact, I am summing up and, if I am repeating myself, I am doing it in the interests of the people I represent. I am not repeating myself as lawyers do in court, merely to string pro­ceedings out to another day and so get an extra refresher from the unfortunate client. Fancy a lawyer, of aii people, speaking about tedious repetition! In any court one can. see lawyers, with one eye on the clock, askmg the same question of the same witness about 14 times, and saying to the judge, "Don't you think it's time we adjourned?" and thinking, "If we do I wm get another 100 guineas for tomorrow as a refresher." The judge, who used to work the same racket himself as a barrister, says, "Yes, I think it is about time we adjourned till tomorrow " and the barrister says, "Jolly good show, old boy", and the case is adjourned.

If the Minister can clear up those points for me, I shall be quite happy to tell my beloved people from the stage of the Regent Theatre on Sunday night what this Bill is really all about.

Mr. Bennett: You won't convince Judge Cormack.

Mr. AIKENS: He won't be there.

Mr. HANLON (Baroona) (3.18 p.m.): As the hon. member for South Brisbane pointed out,. all. in this Chamber-and, I dare say, outs1de 1t-agree that it is desirable to have legal aid availablle as an absolute right for all, not merely the privilege of the wealthy, when they have a justifiable legal action or defence.

I feel, however, that the Minister has not given sufficient information to enable the Committee to comprehend what form the extension of legal aid is to take. I think it true to say that Queensland has lagged particularly UJ?.der this Government (after an: 1t has bee~ m office now for nearly nine years), behmd other States in this matter. It is true that poor prisoners' defence and legal aid in civil matters have been made available, but this has been restricted to the tendering of advice through the Public Curator Office. That is very helpful but advice is of little use if it is not turned into constructive action. In New South Wales legal aid is available to persons who can justifiably bring or defend civil actions and the means test imposed for eligibility is an income up to £1,500 in the case of a man with a wife and three children.

One of the problems that arise in imple­menting a system of legal aid is to dis­tinguish between the right and the privilege. As the hon. member for Townsviiie South said, whose responsibility wiii it be to work out the very difficult question of what is a justifiable action, what is a justifiable defence, and so on? If a means test is to be imposed, where is the line to be drawn? As I said earlier, I think the income limit in New South Wales is £1,500 for a man with a wife and three children-the family unit on which the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act says the basic wage shall be fixed. Does one then say, "Nobody over that income is entitled to legal aid"? Clearly there will still be a gap between the man who has plenty of money and who can afford to indulge his whim, whether justifiably or not, in legal action and the man who gets £1,500 a year. Legal aid can be provided for people who obviously need it, but there will be a second under-privileged class between the man who qualifies under the means test and the man who is one of the privileged few who, even with today's high legal costs, is not denied any opportunity in this regard.

I believe that the hon. member for South Brisbane has expressed very clearly the opinion held by hon. members on this side of the Chamber. Although we have not had an opportunity of studying the pro­visions of the Bill, we endorse the principle of legal aid. Some of the features men­tioned by the Minister that have been intro­duced in Great Britain appear to be very

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER) Legal Assistance Bill 2025

sound and to have worked fairly well there during the last decade. I do not know whether they were originated by the Attlee Labour Government or by a Conservative Government, but they have reached their most advanced stage in Great Britain, par­ticularly in civil actions, in the last decade, according to the handbook we have here, which gives limited information on this sub­ject.

However, without knowing exactly how the provisions of the Bill will operate, and without a better understanding of them than I was able to get from the Minister's introductory speech, I am not entirely happy that their implementation should be left in the hands of the Queensland Law &lciety. I have a respect for the Queensland Law Society, but a limited respect, for what it does in this field and in the general field of examinin.g the conduct of legal practi­tioners. I stress, as did the Minister and the hon. member for South Brisbane, and as I am sure the hon. member for Windsor would, that the legal practitioners in Queensland have a very good record of conduct. Very few of them have fallen by the wayside. In New South Wales there has been what might be described as a rash of investiga­tions in recent months into the conduct of legal practitioners as a result of unfortunate happenings in that State.

I have referred matters to the Queens­land Law &lciety on isolated occasions, and although it might be wise to move very slowly in matters such as this, it appears to have only two speeds-dead slow and stopped-and it is very difficult to get any satisfaction for the people for whom one is acting. As a layman, and as a member of Parliament acting on behalf of constituents who have a problem related to the Jaw, there are probably many points, as there are in other technical matters, that neither my constituents nor I fully comprehend.

One finds difficulty in inquiring further into this sort of thing because when the matter is referred to the Attorney-General and Minis­ter for Justice, one is told that it is a matter for the Law Society. Consequently, although I feel that the best foundation for a legal aid scheme that can be recognised or envisaged must lie in the assistance and co-operation of the legal profession, I do not think it should be confined purely and simply to the Queens­land Law Society. I have not referred to the Bar Association, because I have no know­ledge of it and I do not think the Minister indicated that it would be concerned directly in this scheme.

I feel that everyone welcomes the fact that at last some action in this direction has been taken. As the hon. member for &Juth Brisbane pointed out, it was featured in the policy speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Duggan, in the 1957 State election. As I have already said, as a Labour Government we were behind the other States in not having done something about extending legal aid further at that time, but eight years have now elapsed

and, whatever we might think when we examine the Bill, this is a step in the right direction. As the hon. member for South Brisbane said, inside this Parliament and out­side of it, he has been to the fore in pressing the Government to do something in this direction and in putting into effect, with other members of his profession, moves to assist people who need legal advice and aid and who cannot secure it on any official or organised basis other than through the Bar Association or the Queensland Law Society, or by an approach to individual lawyers. He must feel a great deal of satisfaction in that at last we have something to consider in this direction. Approval or otherwise of the actual method adopted in this case will have to await fuller examination of what the Government has in mind.

Whilst we want legal aid extended in this State, it would be unfortunate if we started it with some half-baked or unsatisfactory beginning in what should be a major advance in this field. It is difficult to work out the position. Perhaps the Government might say that is one reason it has taken so long. There has been consultation between the Law Society, I think, and representatives of the department-and with the Bar Association­for some considerable time, according to answers given by Ministers at various times when we have questioned them over the years about the progress that was being made.

I feel, in common with other speakers, that perhaps the Minister has not given us as much information as we will get when we see the Bill. He has not set down any basis relative to the financial qualification-the means test-that is to be imposed. Whether that is actually dealt with in the Bill or will be a discretionary power vested in a com­mittee set up by the Law Society in associa­tion with a Crown representative, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister made that clear, but if he did I did not hear him. We would be interested in knowing more about it.

Similarly, we should like to know how it will be determined who is entitled to this extension of legal aid. No doubt it will be very difficult to set down on paper the specific requirements in this regard. I appreciate that most of the cases will have to be determined on their merits, but the Minister could have given us a little more information as to the principles on which the examination will be made.

I am not entirely happy about the method of financing this scheme as outlined by the Minister. I think the time is long overdue when consideration should be given to placing trust funds into some avenue which might at least have a chance of earning more than at the present time as non-interest-bearing bank deposits.

The predecessor of the present member for Port Curtis raised several times during the time I have been in Parliament, going back to 1956, the matter of providing for interest to be earned on the vast amount in toto of moneys held in trust funds. The Minister has more or less followed that idea in relation to

2026 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

the Fidelity Guarantee Fund and this scheme for legal aid. I understand that 50 per cent. is to be devoted to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund and 50 per cent. to finance legal aid. I should like to know whether the 50 per cent. share to each of these is the proper pro­portion. I did not hear the Minister indicate what he estimated the interest earnings would be in the initial stages of this fund so as to give us some idea of the extent to which the Fidelity Guarantee Fund will be built up. I think he mentioned a figure of £300,000 for the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. He did not indicate whether the practitioners are to be required to make any higher contribution themselves, apart from the interest earnings which will be received from trust moneys held by them. That is another point on which I feel the Minister could have supplied more information.

In common with other hon. members, I await with interest the actual details of this Bill and any further information the Minister or other hon. members may give us.

Mr. SMITH (Windsor) (3.32 p.m.): I was not here this morning when the Minister introduced this Bill. I understand my absence occasioned a certain amount of ribald com­ment, particularly from the hon. member for Townsville South, who himself is now absent. If it is of any interest to the Chamber, I will tell the hon. member for Townsville South where I was, because I feel he ought to know. I was receiving injections for the purpose of going away with the Air Force at the end of this year to part of the war zones in Vietnam. I am preparing myself against contracting any possible disease. That is where I was. I make no apology for it, to anyone in this Chamber or, for that matter, anyone outside.

Having disposed of that rubbish and waste of time that was occasioned this morning, I now want to pass on to a second matter. I bow to no-one in this Chamber or to anyone else as being the instigator of this measure. I do not for one moment admit to any assist­ance from the hon. member for South Brisbane.

I refer to "Hansard" No. 218, page 288, of 24 September, 1957, which says-

"! have brought to the Chamber the Legal Aid Act of 1949 passed by the English Parliament and administered not by a department, but by the legal profes­sion in England. That Act of 1949 has since that date been implemented not only on behalf of de·serted wives, but also on behalf of people with limited means, so that they can seek justice in the courts. I shall press for as early an adoption as possible of a scheme similar in essence to that scheme. It cou'ld be adopted almost in toto with a minimum of difficulty."

As I say, that was on 24 September, 1957, at which time the hon. member for South Brisbane was not a member of this assembly.

Again, on 7 November, 1957, in volume 219 at page 907, talking about legal aid, I said-

"I shall continue the remarks that have been addressed to the subject of legal aid."

I point out that since 1949 I have been responsible at our party's conventions for having the adoption of this principle written into the party's platform. That was in 1954, not 1957, as claimed by the Opposition. This materia<! came forward from 1954 onwards. In 1957, when I had the oppor­tunity in this Chamber, I immediately com­menced to campaign on this subject.

I emphasised that the Public Curator could not act in a case where both litigants had to be assisted. If one litigant went to the Public Curator, the Public Curator would be prevented from acting for the other party.

Mr. Bennett: He cannot act for litigants at any time.

Mr. SMITH: No, he cannot. I was talk­ing about the inadvisability of administering this scheme by a department. I was urging the necessity of running it as a separate instrumentality. I had indicated that it was impossible fDr a department to administer such a scheme satisfactDrily and I pointed DUt how, under the English system, although all the practitioners work within it, they are not bound intD one unit.

Mr. Hanlon: Wouldn't the department have some representation on it?

Mr. SMITH: It would be very difficult if a perSQn went in the same door of the department as the person whom he wanted to sue, and the s·econd perSQn saw the same official. It would be very difficult to feel that the advice offered was completely impartial.

Mr. Hanlon: Shou'ldn't the CrDwn have somebody, not necessarily from the Crown Law Office, as its representative on the com­mittee who couoJd be more or less respon­sible to it?

Mr. SMITH: That does not matter very much. I am not worrying about that, but about the work actually done. I do not think this wmk can be done by a Govern­ment department. I know that in New South Wales there is a Public Solicitor and he briefs cases out to a number of private practitioners. He has several safeguards to prevent a sudden upsurge of legal matters. For instance, much of the poppycock bandied about, particularly by the hDn. mem­ber for Townsville Sou1h, is completely impossible under a system that is well instituted and safeguarded. In the New South Wales experience, if solicitor "A" has a client whom he considers is entitled to legal aid he refers him to the Public Solici1or and, as a rule of practice, the Public Solicitor does not send the client back to solicitor "A"; he goes to solicitor "B",

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2027

"C", or "D", so solicitors cannot feather their own nests. They cannot increase their own work by recommending people for assi&tance.

That is a simple safeguard which ensures completely that there is no possibi'lity of malpractice, yet we have been treated once again, within the space of a month or so, to a spate of nonsense from the hon. member for Townsville South. He again referred to the desirability of having unqualified Ministers, as did also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This appears in Volume 12 of the current "Hansard", at pages 1413 and 1418 respectively. Each of those two hon. members suggested that it is undesirable to have as heads of departments people with qualifications in those categories. They completely overlook the fact that this Gov­ernment has as Minister for Lands some­one intimately connected with lands. Again, until the recent death of Dr. Noble, a medical practitioner was Minister for Health.

Mr. Bennett: Why have we got a doctor as Minister for Justice?

Mr. SMITH: It was the hon. member's Deputy Leader, the hon. member for Kedron, who made this point, on page 1418 of "Hansard". I did not notice the hon. member for South Brisbane object when that was said.

Mr. Bennett: Read it out.

Mr. SMITH: I will not.

Since 1957 we have had an accountant as Treasurer. I do not seek to justify the attitude adopted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has to justify his party's practice of putting square pegs into round holes.

Mr. Lloyd: They did an exceedingly excellent job.

Mr. SMITH: And they left in a hurry in 1957.

Mr. Bennett: Do you believe you should be Attorney-General? I shall agree with you if you say yes. We can get together on that point.

Mr. SMITH: The hon. member is saying that in despair. He knows his Deputy Leader would not put him into that office.

On 7 November, 1957, I said I felt that this service should be given by the legal profession itself. I mention these dates to point out that, without doubt, I was speaking on this subject before the hon. member for South Brisbane entered politics. On page 288 of "Hansard" Volume 218 I said that I had brought to the Chamber the Legal Aid Act of 1949. At page 1414 of Volume 225 I again dealt with the subject.

On 11 April, 1963, before the last State election, I submitted to the Minister for Justice a memorandum setting out the need for legal aid. I shall read that submission.

I move that it be taken as read, because I propose to table it, and I ask it be incorporated in my speech.

'Ehe TEMPORARY CHAffiMAN (Mr. Hodges): Order! The hon. member cannot do that.

Mr. SMITH: I am quite sure there is a procedure by which I can have it included. However, in that case I shall read it. This is what it says-

"I wish to submit that it would be appropriate to consider the granting of legal assistance to people who are impoverished or whose means are so limited as to preclude them from engaging their own lawyers.

"If one accepts the basic proposition that no person should be without legal assistance in any matter simply by reason of his being unable to pay for it in much the same way as we accept the proposition that a person should not want for medical assistance simply because he cannot pay for it then I submit that what falls to be decided is not whether the aid is to be granted but rather to what classes of people and in what courts the aid is to be granted.

"Three classes of people with undeniable claims for assistance would be--

(1) Deserted wives who are maintaining a family or who are without a family but are unable for good reason to maintain themselves.

(2) The destitute or near destitute person who wishes, on reasonable grounds, to defend an action already instituted against him, and

( 3) The destitute or near destitute person who having a good claim wishes to prosecute an action in order to assert his rights. "The above should qualify for assistance

in any event, particularly when regard is had to the fact that the Public Defender at present appears in Criminal Courts for accused persons whose means far exceed those predicated above. If, as I suggested should be the case, the assistance is made available conditional upon the assisted person contributing within his capacity, then the classes assisted could, and should, be extended. The degree of assistance would be measured by the means of the applicant and in the case where an applicant was destitute the aid should be entirely free and without any restrictions whatsoever whereas at the other end of the scale where the applicant has means, though perhaps not generous means, he should be required to contribute towards the cost incurred. This system is the one employed in England under The Legal Aid and Advice Act and accepted with approval by the English legal profession.

"If assistance is made either totally or in a graded measure then rich and poor alike find it equally easy to have access

2028 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

to the courts and legal redress no longer remains the preserve of those who can pay for it. If the assistance is to mean anything it must not merely mean repre­sentation in court but must include advice the preliminary steps which lead up to either instituting the action or proceeding to defend the action and advice which enables the assisted person to exploit the avenues open to his antagonist and to that end I suggest that provision should be made for legal advice as well as repre­sentation.

"It is noteworthy that the other Aus­tralian States as well as the Australian Capital Territory make provision for legal assistance to their peoples. New South Wales having amended their legislation in 1959, Victoria in 1961, Tasmania in 1962 and with the creation of more Federal Courts imminent it is undoubted that the Commonwealth will extend into those Courts the legal aid already available in its other jurisdictions."

Mr. Bennett: Read out the reply you got. They ignored it, didn't they?

Mr. SMITH: No. This is the reply that I received from the then Minister for Justice-

'Thank you for your letter of 11th April, 1963, and enclosure dealing with the question of Legal Aid.

"Your views with reference to this, together with other relevant data, will be considered in relation to our plans for the next three years, and I am hopeful to make a short reference to this subject in the Policy Speech."

Mr. Bennett: What date was that?

Mr. SMITH: 16 April, 1963.

Mr. Bennett: It took them a long time.

Mr. Lloyd: That was before the election, and there was no reference to it in the policy speech.

Mr. SMITH: Yes, there was.

Mr. Hanlon: It must have been short.

Mr. SMITH: It was not short. It was complete and explicit in 1954, and it went into our platform as a result of my repre­sentations--

Mr. Bennett: Of your party or the Country Party?

Mr. SMITH: My party-the Liberal Party.

I went on to point out in the remainder of this letter-

"This brings us then to the Courts in which, and the actions in which, such advice and assistance would be made available and in this regard consideration could well be given to the type of action which is excluded by the English Act which excludes actions for defamation, breach of promise, loss of services upon

rape or seduction or inducement of one's spouse to leave or remain apart from the other, recovery of penalties where the penalities are payable to the plaintiff, election petitions, proceedings consequent upon the issue of a judgment summons and, in the case of defendants, where the only question to be tried concerns the time and mode of payment by them of a debt."

The activities that I engaged in did not stop at that stage. In the "Telegraph" of 18 October, 1962, and "The Courier-Mail" of 19 October, 1962, appeared certain state­ments of mine relative to the need for legal aid and its availability to a wide variety of people. In April, 1963, the Bar Association set up a committee of four, of which I was a member, to consider this matter. The Queensland Law Society was much behind in this regard. The matter was first raised by the executive of the Law Society on 6 April, 1963, but the Bar Association had taken the lead in it. Between 1957 and 1963 much was said by me in Parliament on this subject, but there was very little activity on the professional side.

I think it is regrettable that it has taken so long to introduce this measure. The need for it was apparent in 1957. At that time I spoke on this subject; I spoke also of the need for an overhaul of third-party motor vehicle insurance and stressed particularly the need for a nominal defendant. That statutory creature was introduced some years ago and has proved to be of considerable benefit. The need for legal aid was as great then as was the need for a nominal defendant and the need for a review of third-party motor vehicle insurance.

I do not mind where the money comes from to finance this scheme; I am interested only in its being found and being put to this use. Although I claim that I have not let this matter lie in this Chamber at any stage over the last nine years and that I have been agitating for it actively since the early 1950's, I should say that, no matter where the money comes from, we should grab it with both hands.

Mr. Hanlon: This money would have been deposited with banks previously and no interest would have been paid on it?

Mr. SMITH: That is correct.

I do not suggest for one moment that the solicitors should be called upon to make any greater contribution to their fidelity fund, to which they now make an annual contribu­tion. The drawbacks to the present fund are these: firstly, it is limited in its extent; secondly, although a person may claim immediately, he will not be paid immediately, because there cannot be any distribution until all the claims against a defaulting solicitor are to hand. It follows that if people have been defrauded of £30,000, a dividend of only 10s. in the £1 can be paid because the statutory limit on any one pay-out is £15,000.

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2029

Although the fund may have £60,000 in it, as it has at present, only £15,000 can be paid out at one time. In the case of any defrauding, all the litigants affected have to claim and then wait for a distribution. If, on the other hand, the fund is made very buoyant and has a limit of £300,000 on it, litigants who have been defrauded can reasonably expect to be paid forthwith on making a claim.

It will be an unusual occurrence to find a default of more than £300,000. For this reason alone, it would be an advantage to change the set-up and get the interest from a fund such as the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. However, to me and to many of my col­leagues it seems completely unjustifiable that solicitors should be called upon to make a greater contribution than they do now, only to see that contribution lie in a fund and be taken. out to meet not the debts that they occasiOn but the debt occasioned by some other person. It is like asking all the accountants in Brisbane to pay into a fund so. that if an accountant loses money for his chents the others can pay it back for him.

Mr. Lloyd: You are going to use the clients' money.

Mr. SMITH: We are not going to use their money.

Mr. Lloyd: You are going to use the interest on their money.

Mr. SMITH: They are not getting interest on it, in many cases.

Mr. Lloyd: They are going to get it now.

~~· SMIT~: We are not changing the positiOn one wta.

Mr. BeiiDett: It is difficult for them to get interest on it.

Mr. SMITH: It is impracticable.

Mr. Hanlon: The bank gets the money for nothing.

Mr. SMITH: The bank gets it and uses it. It lends it out and receives interest in return. The money is not going to the solicitors· it is being made available to the general ~ublic who may be defrauded by a dishonest solici­~or: That is what is to happen, and I think It IS a very laudable aim and must receive universal approval. I, for one, whole­heartedly support that application of interest which hitherto has not been earnable and which at present is not of any benefit to any­one-client, solicitor, or the owner of the money.

Mr. Hanlon: Do you think it is necessary to pay half into the guarantee fund? Couldn't you allow more for the legal aid scheme?

Mr. SMITH: The legal aid scheme for the whole of England cost only £333,948 for the first year so I do not think there is any need for us to build up a legal aid fund very rapidly.

Mr. Bennett: Legal aid for in England cost £2,782,000. for that is the Australian Volume 318, No. 6.

divorces alone My reference Law Journal,

Mr. SMITH: I quoted the cost for the first year of its existence in England.

Mr. Hanlon: Isn't it a reflection on solicitors to say that as much has to be set aside for defalcations as for the legal aid scheme? That is what you are saying.

Mr. SMITH: No. The legal aid fund will not come into use very quickly, but in case of a defalcation, as soon as the default is assessed the dividend is available. Immedi­ately this Bill goes through, any client who is affected can claim and get his money from the fidelity fund.

Mr. Hanlon: Only up to the point set.

Mr. SMITH: £300,000. After that we would have to come back to this Parliament and decide what bad to be done.

Mr. Lloyd interjected.

:Mr. SMITH: I am accepting this blessing, as I regard it as a blessing. I am thankful for the source of the money and for the fact that even at this late stage we are intro­ducing a scheme that I have advocated for so long.

I will use more time when the measure is being more fully debated to show that there will not be a tremendous rush of cases for legal aid.

(Time expired.)

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (3.57 p.m.): Natur­ally we welcome any legislation that gives to the public even a semblance of free legal assistance. For the last 10 years some such s~heme has obviously been necessary, par­ticularly for people unfortunate enough to be on fixed incomes.

Unfortunately, legislation introduced by this Government up to date relating to many matters of this kind has been such as to make it extremely easy for accused people to plead guilty but very expensive and difficult for them to plead not guilty. Under the guise of trying to expedite court hearings a plea of guilty has been made much easier and less expensive. However, the legislation outlined by the Minister seems to offer not so much a wide field of legal assistance as something in the nature of a fringe legal benefit. From what I can understand of the legislation, solicitors' trust accounts are accounts into which solicitors pay moneys that are more or less advance payments for legal expenses for themselves and the barrister who acts for their client in court. They are paid to the solicitor in advance as a guarantee that the solicitor and the barrister will present themselves and represent the person concerned in court.

In these funds on occasions lie hundreds of pounds paid in advance legal expenses. This seems to be the only profession in the

2030 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Legal Assistance Bill

world where that sort of thing is done. No doubt it has been introduced because it was thought necessary and I have not much to say about that. At the same time, we must consider this money for what it is, namely, money belonging to the client. It is advanced by the client to the solicitor and is held in trust, non-interest-bearing, both to the solicitor and the client. But it is the client's money; it belongs to the person seeking the legal representation.

From such money held in trust accounts 50 per cent. of the lowest balance during the first period of 12 months will be deposited with the Law Society and placed into an interest-bearing account in a bank. 50 per cent. of that interest will be paid into a fund to provide legal assistance to the public and the other 50 per cent. will be put into the legal practitioners' guarantee account-in other words, a fidelity fund to guarantee the money paid in by clients.

From my experience, both here and in the Public Service, it has always been my impression that whatever moneys are held by the Government in trust-when I say "in trust", I mean completely in trust-that money cannot be utilised for any purpose other than the trust for which it is intended, unless it is invested in some gilt-edged security and is interest-bearing, and that interest is used to build up the purpose for which the trust account was originally established.

In those cases where clients' money is held by solicitors and transferred to the savings bank account of the Law Society, 50 per cent. of the interest earned is used or diverted for the solicitors' own benefit to guarantee all solicitors against the one man who may be a potential criminal, or against defalcation or wrongful utilisation of money held in the name of a client. I feel that it is not only wrong, but in some ways it is dishonest. That money does not belong to the solicitors. It belongs to the clients who have in good faith deposited that money with the solicitor.

Mr. Smith: It is not being given to the solicitors.

Mr. LLOYD: I did not say it was being given to the solicitors; I said it was being used for the benefit of the solicitors.

Mr. Smith: No, it is not. It is for the benefit of their clients.

Mr. LLOYD: I suggest it is the solicitors. I understand this proposal. There is no need to try to correct me on it. This money is to be used to guarantee the clients' money held by any solicitor. At the same time it has already been accepted as the respon­sibility of the solicitors themselves who have to pay it into the fidelity fund or the Legal Practitioners Guarantee Account as a guar­antee against any defalcation by one man.

Mr. Smith: That is passed on as a sort of gesture.

Mr. LLOYD: The money belongs to the clients. It is part of the interest on the fund established by the Queensland Law Society and is to be used to bring the Legal Practitioners Guarantee Account up to a figure of £300,000 so that at all times there will be a guarantee on money held by solicitors in trust for clients, and guarantee­ing the clients against defalcation on the part of the solicitor.

Mr. Lee: Do you mean to say it is similar to a bank shareholders' fund?

Mr. LLOYD: No, it is not a bank share­holders' fund. It is payment of money for legal expenses in advance to solicitors and barristers. As I said before, it may be necessary but to my way of thinking this is the only profession in the world which demands payment in advance. Sometimes it is a considerable amount of money that is paid in advance. I am not too sure that the Minister for Justice himself is not going to consider introducing something like this into the A.M.A., whereby doctors and specialists in the community will demand fees in advance from their patients before undertaking an operation.

Mr. Lee: What about real estate fees?

Mr. LLOYD: That is money placed on deposit in good faith until the completion of the transaction. I am not criticising the necessity for clients to pay in advance for legal representation. It may be quite right and necessary. What I am criticising is that the Government is offering purely and simply fringe benefits and is not participating in the scheme at all. All it is doing is organising the Queensland Law Society to create a system which it can offer to people in the community who cannot afford the high cost of legal representation, and asking the Law Society to frame a policy by which the people in the community can receive free legal assistance.

The Law Society is organising and placing a scheme before the Government, and all the Government is doing is giving legislative validity to the proposal. We are assured by the Minister that it will not cost the people one penny. It will be clients' money held by solicitors and paid into the Law Society, with 50 per cent. of the interest going towards the cost of this scheme and 50 per cent. towards the Fidelity Guarantee Fund, which is to be built up to £300,000. Once it reaches £300,000 the whole of the interest will be used to provide free legal assistance. For my part, I should like to see how the system works. We are told that 50 per cent. of the interest on the account held by the Law Society will be used to provide free legal aid for those who need it.

I am rather interested to know the method of implementation of this scheme. Who will administer it? Are these funds of the Law Society to be audited by the Government or will they, as usual, be audited by the society's auditors? I am not implying that

Legal Assistance Bill [2 DECEMBER] Legal Assistance Bill 2031

there would be any cheating; doubtless there would not be. A great majority of people are- honest and there would in the Law Society be the same percentage of honest men as there is in the parliamentary field.

If the Law Society administers the- scheme in conjunction with the Crown Solicitor, is it to be the decision of the Law Society whether anyone will be eligible for free legal assistance? There are two matters to be decided: first'ly, whether a person deserves free legal assistance, based on his income, and, secondly, whether his case has any chance of succeeding. Any case at all will certainly not be accepted, and apparently the decision will be in the hands of the Law Society. It seems that the committee has to decide who will represent a C'lient but, again, we do not know. It may be in the hands of the Law Society to decide that one solicitor will do a job, or a certain bar­rister will be briefed. I am not concerned whether the scheme is based on the system in Victoria or the system in the United Kingdom. My concern is that the scheme is put forward by the Queensland Law Society and not by the Government and that we are considering only whether it should have legislative effect.

Mr. Hanlon: The Law Society was asked to come up with a free legal aid scheme and it came up with a free legal aid scheme based on 50 per cent. of its fidelity fund.

Mr. LLOYD: Exactly. It is creating a fringe benefit scheme and, as the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane pointed out, there is no added assistance in criminal cases.

Will the scheme be completely successful? !Many solicitors will have clients paying high fees. I have no doubt that the fees paid for people receiving free legal assistance will be at a lower level than fees normally paid by a private client. So that all eligible people may receive . this aid, I have no doubt the money W1ll have to be spread over a wide field and fees to solicitors and barristers will have to be kept at a minimum. People who pay high fees will insist that solicitors look after their affairs before treating with a person who is receiving free legal aid. That problem could arise only with an organisation offering free lega!l aid to the community without any Government control. The proper method of offering full free legal aid to the community is by direct Government administration.

This scheme is certainly a step in the right direction, but in its present concept it goes only part of the way towards pro­viding free legal aid for the many people in the community who really need it. This scheme will not give them the full benefits they are entitled to.

Mr. Smith: Yes, it will.

Mr. LLOYD: I am afraid the hon. mem­ber for Windsor quite often shows naivety in many of these matters. I am sure he is

an excellent advocate for those for whom he appears---he is very sincere and con­scientious in so many matters---but he is completely unworldly in many of these matters.

There is a limit to how far this scheme can go in offering legal aid to the community. The scheme is not provided by the Government; it is provided by the legal practitioners through the Queensland Law Society, and is to be paid for out of the interest earned on trust moneys and fidelity funds. I think these people should be congratulated for contributing towards an insurance fund which will guarantee justice to many people in Queensland.

I think the Government is only playing with the idea of giving the public legal assistance as cheaply as possible. Several weeks ago the Minister introduced legislation to decentralise Magistrates Courts in Brisbane, and claimed that it would provide speedier justice at less cost. As I said then, all it will do is make it easier to plead guilty and more costly to plead not guilty.

I think the Minister should give considera­tion to some of the less complicated fields of law, for instance, undefended divorce cases. Before the war, when I was with the State Reporting Bureau, I reported undefended divorces, most of which were heard by a Supreme Court judge in his Chambers. They usually started at 11 o'clock, and by 12 o'clock the judge had dealt with two or three cases. In each of those cases a barrister was briefed by a solicitor, and both the barrister and the solicitor appeared. The barrister presented the case and the judge granted the decree nisi within about five minutes.

A deserted mother with a family would pay a large sum of money to have such a divorce heard. As in most instances it is quite obvious that the case will be undefended, it seems unnecessary to have both a solicitor and a barrister present when she deposes to a judge of the Supreme Court that on a certain date her husband deserted her and had not returned. Yet such a case would cost £150, £200, and sometimes more. It seems that a case of that description would be a simple one for a judge to decide on and that the costs of the legal profession should not be very high. The same remarks apply in other fields of justice.

I believe that if the Law Society and the Crown Law Office got together and endeavoured to find some way of lowering legal costs, they could come forward with some scheme by which the whole complicated procedure could be made shorter and cheaper. I hope this scheme succeeds. Many sincere and genuine people, such as barristers and solicitors and the Law Society, will do their best to see that it does.

The hon. member for Townsville South raised a very important matter which should be considered before the Minister replies. This scheme will probably succeed in Brisbane and in the larger provincial cities. But

2032 Legal Assistance Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

people in the smaller towns also require legal assistance and justice in our courts. Circuit courts are held at Mt. Isa (the court was recently transferred there from Cloncurry), Longreach, Charleville, Roma, and many other towns. How will the cases of people in these areas who seek legal aid be assessed by the committee that is to be established under the provisions of the Bill? Will they be dealt with as expeditiously as those of people in Brisbane, Rockhampton, and Townsville?

There are many matters that possibly can be left for fuller discussion at the second­reading stage. If, however, greater clarifica­tion of many of the points raised can be given by the Minister now, perhaps the need to discuss them further could be removed.

Mr. ADAIR (Cook) (4.16 p.m.): I com­mend the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. Several speakers have expressed doubts that the Bill will serve the purpose for which it has been framed. At least it is an attempt to give free legal advice to people who can­not afford to pay for it. This is something that previous Governments failed to do and something that I feel is very necessa;y. I have made many requests to the Minister for the granting of legal aid to constituents. On occasions when I have brought these matters before the Minister he has informed me that he was unable to give any assistance to those on whose behalf I had made the repre­sentations, and has advised me to take the matter to a solicitor in the area in which the people concerned resided.

Mr. Bennett: That still will apply under the Bill, because if they pleaded guilty that would be in the criminal field and the Minis­ter is not going to change that.

Mr. ADAIR: Nevertheless, people involved in divorce cases and other types of action will at least hav~ a chance of being assisted, whereas prevwusly they had none.

Recently the Minister told a person who approached him with a complaint to take it up with the Queensland Law Society. The person concerned handed me this letter, and I placed the matter before the Law Society. I must admit that they did take action on the matter. The letter that I sent to the Law Society was forwarded to the person con­cerned, who was a prominent solicitor in Cairns, and all I got from him was an abusive letter. So far I have not been able to get any action at all. The matter concerns mo_n~y that h~s been held in trust by the sol!citor for e1ght or nine years. The Law Society merely forwarded my letter to the solicitor, which I could have done myself and all I received was an abusive letter fron~ him in which he claimed that he did not think it was the function of a politician to take this matter up with the Law Society and all that sort of business. '

I do not intend to speak very long on this measure. From the number of requests I have received for assistance in legal matters during my time as a member of Parliament, I claim that this is good legislation. Even if it does not meet all that is required till it has been in operation for a few years, it will at least give some satisfaction to those who cannot afford to seek legal advice.

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis-Minister for Education) (4.20 p.m.), in reply: I thank hon. members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The Bill has received their unanimous approval and has provided a field day for our legal colleagues, who have dis­cussed a subject with which they are well acquainted. So many members have indicated that they are in favour of the measure that I am certain it will be very welcome.

Mr. Hanlon: Its introduction is welcome.

Mr. PIZZEY: I am sure that hon. members will peruse the Bill carefully when they receive copies of it. Some of the questions they have raised may be answered for them when they read the Bill. The suggestions they have made will be examined carefully by the Minister and will be dealt with at the second reading stage or at the Committee stage, whichever is the more appropriate.

Motion (Dr. Delamothe) agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Pizzey, read a first time.

GAS BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (4.23 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the regulation and control of the supply of gases for lighting, heating, motive and other power, the prices to be charged therefor, the safe handling thereof, the standards of heating power, purity and pressure of such gases, and for other purposes."

With the changes in gas-making technology and the introduction of gases of petroleum origin, it has become very evident that the present Gas Act is outmoded and deficient in many respects. The Bill that I am introducing is designed to provide an Act that will cover the industry as it is today and as it will be in the foreseeable future. The rights of consumers have been protected but, at the same time, a measure of freedom has been afforded to gas marketers.

Generally, the Act will apply to gases used for heating, lighting, motive and other power. Gases used as feedstocks for chemical processes, etc., do not come under the general provisions of the Act.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2033

In so far as safety and measurement are concerned, all gases do come under the Act.

When coal gas delivered through pipes was the only gas available, dangerous actions and situations could be readily detected and the policing of safety requirements was a relatively easy matter. Now that powerful gases of petroleum origin can be transported readily in liquid form, in containers of varying sizes, safety assumes paramount importance. The power to control all gases from this angle was therefore included in the proposed Act.

The clauses dealing with the granting of franchises, which were inserted by the amending Act of 1964, have been varied to some degree. The basic principles have not been altered.

A gas company holding a franchise under the old Act is deemed to hold one under the new Act and is subject to the conditions contained therein. However, any new franchises granted will not only be subject to the conditions contained in the Act but also subject to any special conditions the Governor in Council may impose when granting the franchise.

All franchises, whether old or new, will be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council can determine the type of gas to be supplied and the feedstock to be used. It is hoped that this will never be used, but, if it becomes necessary in order to protect our indigenous fuels, the power is there.

In the case of liquefied petroleum gas supplied in containers, franchise holders will be given some protection. Gas sold in con­tainers of up to 240 lb. water capacity (that is, the normal 100 lb. gas cylinders), can be sold by anybody. For five years from the date this Act comes into force or for five years from the date a new franchise is granted, only the franchise holder can supply gas in containers over this size unless the Governor in Council approves of supply by some other person.

Bulk liquefied petroleum gas, that is, in containers over 240 lb. water capacity, is normally supplied to industrial consumers and the loss of this business could have an adverse effect on the economy of a gas company, with resultant rises in the price of gas to other consumers.

To protect the domestic consumer, it is being provided that when a natural gas supplier enters into a contract with a company supplying gas to consumers, priority of supply up to the contracted amount must be given to that company. I hope that further dis­coveries of natural gas wells will be such that action under this clause is never necessary.

The method of fixing the price of gas to consumers has been varied. The present formula is inflexible and cumbersome. The total amount a franchise holder could receive prior to this Act from the sale of gas was based on a percentage return on the value of the assets actually used in the production and distribution of gas. The Gas Referee then determined what prices would be

charged to give this return. Sales of residuals and appliances were not included in the percentage return, and buildings, etc., used for these purposes were not included in the value of assets.

The proposed new system is for the com­pany to fix its own prices but the amount received shall not be more than a percentage of the whole assets of the company used in the business, that is, production, distribution, sales of appliances, etc. This could allow companies with large. assets t<? _increase t~e price of gas and pay mflated dividends, so m addition to the restriction on percentage return on assets, the dividend the company can pay on its paid-up capital is also limit~d. In my opinion this will allow the compames more flexibility of operation but will not result in rises in the price of gas.

If price rises occur whic~ are. co~sid~red unjustified, I can order an mvestigation mto the affairs of the companies concerned and the Gas Referee can determine what price should be charged.

Until hon. members receive copies of the Bill and study it, it is fruitless for me to elaborate on the proposals. In subsequent discussions on the BiU the various pro­visions can be expounded more fully.

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedwn) (4.31 p.m.): It is rather difficult at the introductory stage to assess some parts of the Bill, but I shall deal first with the proposed new method of fixing the price of gas. At present the P\ice of gas is fixed as a percentage of cap1tal assets that were possibly acquired years ago, when the buildings or manufacturing plants cost much less than they would today. I want to be fair and reasonable, and it would seem that a percentage of such capital assets may not give a fair profit over cost of production. We accept that, but the Gov­ernment now proposes to allow the company to fix the price as a percentage of its dividend. As I understood the Minister, that is more or less the position. The yearly net profit of a company is arrived at after transfers to reserves and provision for taxa­tion and depreciation are deducted from the gross return and a dividend is then declared. Under the Bill the dividend will apparently be subject to supervision so that it is not too high. It would be most unusual if any company fixed a dividend that was far too high having regard to its assets, but then and only then will a price be determined as a percentage of the dividend. That is the way I see it. We will have to closely examine the proposal to find out whether accountancy practice permits watering-down of assets, methods of manipulating dividends, and methods of hiding assets to the extent that the ba'lance sheet does not reveal to the public the true picture. Those methods have been the principal cause of the many take-overs in recent years. Another com­pany can buy in at a cheap price and

2034 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

immediately recapitalise the investment and still make the profit that was made previously.

I think we should very carefully examine the basis, bearing in mind that a consortium of five oil companies made the original sug­gestion to the Government that price should be established as a percentage of dividend, and not as a percentage of profit, as at pr,esent, so that they could secure a certain return on working expenses and capital assets.

The Bill provides for the regulation and control of the supply of gases for lighting, heating, motive and othe·r power. According to the Minister, a restriction or a limitation is to be placed on the present franchises. New franchises may be granted to other companies to provide liquid petroleum gas or natural gas.

The Bill sets limits for liquefied petroleum gas of 240-lb. water capacity and 100-lb. gas capacity, plus existing bulk supplies to com­mercial interests.

I have often heard the former Minister, the late Hon. E. Evans, say that oil refineries could produce liquefied petroleum gas cheaply, but that they had refused at all times to bring their cracking units down to the stage at which the maximum quantity of oil by-products could be produced. They crack down to a certain level and the residue is sold. No doubt liquefied petroleum gas will compete with natural gas in future, but the oil companies refuse to carry out the final processing of crude oil to get the ulti­mate in by-products. As the oil companies are competing with coal gas and our own natural gas, and are not using all the refinery processes at their disposal, I do not think they deserve any preferential treatment from the Government.

A case has been advanced by the oil com­panies-and in many cases they own the refineries-for special consideration because of the part they have played in the develop­ment of Queensland. They say they have established the oil refineries and therefore should receive every consideration for help­ing to develop Queensland. They have built the refineries only because of the profits to be made from the catalystic processes of the refineries. The shareholders will reap large dividends-and they will be extremely high. They should not receive preferential treatment when they are in competition with other pro­ducers of gas.

The Minister scarcely referred to natural gas. If he had done so, it would have been discussed fully. The legislation, however, simply relates to regulation of the supply, price, and safety measures in the gas-produc­ing industry in Queensland. I think I am correct in assuming that natural gas will be covered by subsequent legislation. In New South Wales separate legislation covers lique­fied petroleum gas. Separate legislation seems to be favoured for liquefied petroleum gas

because other matters are involved, and they preclude its inclusion in legislation dealing with natural gas, and coal gas.

I will closely examine the Bill before the Second Reading stage, and I reserve any further comments until then.

Mr. PILBEAM (Rockhampton South) (4.39 p.m.): As the Minister has indicated, it is very true that modern trends in gas-making technology make it imperative that we intro­duce a modern Gas Act which will protect the interests of the producers as well as those of the consumers. This legislation will do just that, as I am sure hon. members will agree when they peruse it later.

The Government has been very careful in this measure, because a new gas is being dealt with, to ensure that it will not cause any dis­location in the industry. There would cer­tainly be dislocation if we ignored the existing franchises under the Act. By granting franchises to the present franchise-holders under the existing Act the Minister is rightly protecting the interests of those undertakings which, over the years, have rendered very good service to the people in the areas over which they hold franchises and which have substantial capital investments there.

The existing undertakings cannot be ignored simply because new gases are being introduced. There is no doubt that a much more complicated situation has been brought about by the introduction of liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, and refinery gas into a world in which coal gas, delivered through pipes, was formerly the only gas available to the public. It is satisfactory to know that franchise-holders will be given partial protection by being given sole rights in their respective areas to sell liquefied petroleum gas in gas cylinders of over 100 lb., although 100 lb. cylinders can be sold by anybody.

Franchise-holders will be given this pro­tection for five years from the date the Act commences, or five years from the date a new franchise is granted. I consider that is a fair provision. Franchise-holders accept responsibility for reticulating gas in their areas, and they must be given reasonable time in which to recoup the substantial capital outlay involved. It is only right and just that they should be given this protection, while they are doing this work and making this outlay, against rival undertakings, which will assume no such responsibility for reticulation or have such a large financial outlay. To take the example of a new area, if no protection was given to the franchise­holder, liquefied petroleum gas sales could amount to 90 per cent. of the total sales in the area and the franchise-holder would enjoy only about 10 per cent. of the total sales, out of the proceeds of which he would have to recoup himself for the cost of reticulating the gas under the ground. I say it is only right and fair that he should be given reasonable protection. Five ye~rs is a very reasonable term for the franch1se as against any indeterminate period, because

Gas Bill (2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2035

it will act as a spur to franchise-holders to set smartly about the task of reticulating gas and securing as many customers as possible and satisfying them during the five years during which they enjoy protection.

The. principle . of protecting existing franchise-holders IS a sound one and is in the best interests of suppliers and customers alike. It causes no dislocation in the indus­try a~d acts as a spur both to existing franchise-holders and to new franchise­holders in accelerating the services they are giving the area and getting on with the task of reticulating gas in that part of the State.

The new method of fixing the price of gas to consumers appears to be a fair one. The supply company is not allowed to make chimerical profits, which are pegged below a reasonable ceiling. The returnable profits -that is, profits which are returned to share­holders in the form of dividends-are also fixed. A perusal of the Bill shows that the return is fixed at 3 per cent. over the bond rate, which at present is 5! per cent. That means that the returnable profit is currently fixed at 8! per cent., which seems to be a pretty fair return.

The Minister has the power under the Act to order an investigation into the affairs of any company which appears to have imposed unjustifiable price rises. This matter was referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who asked what could be done to prevent improper practices. They have to be guarded against in every field. Laws_ and courts exist to rectify improper practices. Under the Act the Minister can order an investigation, and the Gas Referee can determine the correct price to be charged. Here again the consumer public is being protected by a sympathetic administration.

I consider that the Bill affords the best help to the industry, and in my opinion the industry would not be best served by a separate Act governing sales of L.P.G. only, which is the case in New South Wales. I consider that the latter ignores altogether . the rights of existing suppliers of conventwnal gases, particularly indigenous natural gases and coal gas.

For the reasons I have outlined I support the Bill. '

~r: CHINC~EN (Mt. Gravatt) (4.47 p.m.): Thi_s Is a _very Important piece of legislation. It IS obvious that the Gas Act had to be overhauled, and this is now being done.

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Kedron say that he saw no reas~m why the !llajor oil companies should :ec~Ive_ preferential treatment. There is no mdicatwn of that, and I think his scathing refere~ces to the oil companies were totally unjustified. Before the construction of the two o!l refineries in Brisbane, oil companies had mve~te~ £52,000,000 in this State. Surely this IS a very important industry so why should the hon. member make such a statement? This type of industry is of

vital importance to the State, and remarks of that type do Queensland no service at all.

It is interesting to note that 20 years ago in the United States gas supplied 12 per cent. of the energy used; it now supplies 34 per cent. During that period the total amount of energy used has increased many times over, and at present gas supplies 34 per cent. of the energy consumed. Oil's share of the market has increased from 28 per cent. to 35 per cent., which is interesting when one remembers that there is natural gas in the United States. The percentage figure of the total energy consumed provided by coal has fallen from 55 to 27. That is a pattern that can be expected in Australia during the next 20 years.

Considering what must happen when natural gas is piped to this city and other parts of the State, I am wondering whether what the Bill proposes in franchise areas can be justified. Several firms have developed the L.P.G. business of their own volition, and they have done it well. They have established markets all over the State, but franchise-holders are now to have distribution rights within their areas for gas in containers over 100 lb. This will restrict the activities of those who are at present operating in this field. I can understand some protection being given to fra;nchise~holders who will be involved in the expense of laying pipelines-! think that is probably justified­but I do not see why it is necessary in a city such as Brisbane where gas is reticu­lated and is competing satisfactorily with liquid petroleum gas.

The franchise-holders are to be given the right to supply natural gas and, in addition, the right to take over the major part of the supply of liquid petroleum gas. This form of energy is already competing with coal and oil, but it represents only 3 per cent. of the gas used in Brisbane. After the introduction of natural gas it may represent as little as 1 per cent., because the containers in which it is transported and sold make it more costly than either natural gas or coal gas.

In my opinion, it will be unfair to estab­lished businesses in this State in which a great deal of money has been invested if the franchise-holders are given the right to sell liquid petroleum gas. How can it be a real competitor with natural gas? It cannot be. Competition is required at all levels-at the retail level as well as the wholesale level-and I believe that this should be taken into consideration in considering how people who have invested millions of pounds in Queensland and who supply liquid petroleum gas as part of their business will be affected. I do not see why it should not remain part of their business.

I was somewhat surprised to hear that the formula for arriving at the price of gas to franchise-holders has been changed from the percentage of assets value of all production items to all assets of the franchise-holders. Surely this will widen the field enormously.

2036 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

It will probably allow franchise-holders sell­ing gas to go into enormous buildings in every suburb and enter the retailing field. Why should they do this? It will merely add to the price that consumers pay for gas. I am horrified when I see the big buildings erected by various regional electricity boards to enable them to retail refrigerators, wash­ing machines and other electrical appliances to the public in competition with other retailers. In my opinion, their job is to reticulate electricity; they should not enter the retail field in a big way and compete against smaller businesses who have no other source of income. Under the proposed formula, I foresee that the franchise-holders will be able to spend as much as they like for this purpose and then include the cost of buildings, and so on, in their assets. This, of course, will increase the price of gas to consumers.

Mr. Lloyd: That would not be com­petition.

Mr. CHINCHEN: These people will have no competition. Even the right to supply liquid petroleum gas is being given to them. I see no reason why consumers should pay for the assets of retail businesses in the price they pay for gas in their homes.

I fully agree that a new Act is required and that, in the main, the proposed Bill will do a good job. However, I should like consideration to be given to the two points that I have mentioned. It is fairly obvious that natural gas will be coming to Brisbane. Overseas, natural gas is conveyed 1,000 miles or 1,500 miles in high-tensile thin pipes and still competes successfully with other forms of power. There is no question that natural gas-I am dealing specifically with Brisbane, not with the State as a whole-can be sold here at a reasonable price. A careful watch will have to be kept to see that there is no unfair competition and to ensure that a loading in the proposed formula does not mean that the consumer has to pay for some­thing that is not part of the production or distribution of this type of gas. I hope the Minister will let hon. members know what his view is and that we will know the full story when we see the Bill.

Mr. HANSON (Port Curtis) (4.55 p.m.): I desire at this stage to make a few observa­tions on this Bill. I shall be very happy when it is printed to study its provisions, and will possibly make a contribution during the second reading. I remember very well the introduction of the Gas Acts Amendment Bill of 1964, when the then Minister, the late Mr. Evans, promised that later in the year he would be amending the Act to streamline it and bring it to the stage where it would work efficiently for the industry as a whole, as well as for the public. However, there has been a series of delays upon which I do not wish to dwell. There was unfortunately, as we all know, the untimely passing of the Minister, for instance. I presume the present Bill has had much re-shaping and re-drafting

after much calling into conference of many of the parties who are vitally interested in matters of this nature.

I must say that, whilst the Minister's remarks were brief, nevertheless there were several factors that call for comment. I pre­sume there is considerable illumination in the Bill by which we will be able to view its intention and its clauses. I am sure they will receive close scrutiny from this side.

First of all, Mr. Evans suggested-it was long overdue-the re-casting of this Act because prior to the amending Bill of 1964 a considerable number of enabling Bills were brought before Parliament to allow various centres to obtain a gas supply. I faintly remember the Minister saying there was a heavy responsibility upon people who obtained a franchise to supply gas in a cer­tain area, and that if they were in any way dilatory there would be power in the Act to revoke the franchise. There was an incident on the Gold Coast some years ago when a company obtained a franchise and was very dilatory in implementing it. Whether or not that company was trying to hawk the fran­chise I do not know, but it looked very sus­picious and I do not think the company actually proceeded with the franchise in question. Such a position in other centres could lead to a comparable serious type of abuse, which I do not think accords with the spirit of the legislation envisaged by the Minister.

When speaking on the second reading of the Gas Acts Amendment Bill of 1964 the Minister said that companies given a fran­chise had a very vital community service to perform. On the other side of the Chamber this afternoon several speakers have spoken of the enormous financial undertakings neces­sary for companies that are granted fran­chises. That may be so, but paramount in my mind-and I am sure in the minds of other Opposition members also-is that the public should be served and if there emanates from this Parliament any franchise-! will not call it a monopoly, although that is what it virtually is in certain areas-the company obtaining that franchise has a very definite public responsibility. In my mind it is the No. 1 responsibility, and to my mind profits run a very bad second.

As I said on one occasion, supposing a company was given a franchise to supply gas from Brisbane to Ashgrove; I am sure a line run out there would be very profitable even though it might be expensive to put down. If it went past the Ashgrove terminus to The Gap, it would not be quite so profitable. Nevertheless, there would be a little profit in it. If it went farther out to the less densely populated areas, the company would be operating at a loss.

I maintain that if a franchise is given to run a line to a particular suburb or area, the company should take the good with the bad so long as it is serving public interests. That should be the main consideration on the part of anybody who is conscious of his public responsibility.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2037

I do know that in this technological age Acts relative to gases that come onto the market require recasting. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages and certain ways of looking at the various problems as they arise. Everything in the garden is not rosy in regard to natural gas, for instance. It is not just a question of putting a pipe into the ground at very little cost, and piping it into. a city. On the contrary, it i:s very expensive and I am realistic enough to appreciate that any company which brings a natural gas line into this city will be facing considerable expense. Before starting such an operation it would require an under­taking from private gas companies of just ho~ much gas they would be requiring for their use. It would need something definite. That is only simple, sound economics.

If a company is going to promote a certain amount of capital in thi:s work, it will be necessary for it to know just what are the requirements of the city. I hope that one day we will find this great utility serving the people of this State and the industries in which they are employed.

There are a number of gas companies which do not desire to lose the business in which they have been engaged for many years. I know that over a number of years there have been discussions and conferences with the Gas Referee over their operations. It has been mentioned by the Minister today that there is flexibility in this legislation so far as it relates to dividends and the prices to be charged. These provisions will be closely scrutinised by members of the Opposition when they receive the Bill.

The~e .has been a lot of disputation over the ex1stmg Act. Conferences with the Gas Referee have been held to try to assess the value of old pipes and things of that nature. If the Minister and his departmental officers have given it thought and the answer is in the best interests of the public, the measure will have our sound support.

Refinery waste gases are quite new to this State.. In a time of emergency we may find that 1f. we place full and complete reliance on th1s form of supply, we will be encouraging a very serious state of affairs. From what I am told, if the outlets relied entirely on the Brisbane refineries, tht;re would be only a three-months' supply. We must take into account that there may be scarcities, especially in the event of hostilities. We must ensure that provision is made throughout the industry so that the people and public services generally, may not suffe; from any shortage of supply.

In his introductory remarks the Minister said that under the old system the residuals did not affect the pricing of gas, but under the new system they will. In coal gas pro­duction, the residuals are very important to the industry.

Of paramount importance in the minds of Tom Jones and Bill Brown is the fact that the public interest should be served first, and people generally are concerned whether

this legislation will lead to a price rise. We must be careful not to inflict on the public a very serious rise in price. Everyone to whom we talk says, "This is some sort of confidence trick being played by the companies who are granted a franchise for natural gas," and so on. We can talk until we are blue in the face, but we cannot convince them otherwise. I stress to the Minister that the people generally are very wary of being "touched", not only in this field but in most others. As this legislation is very important to the general public, we must convince the people that we, as legis­lators, and the gas industry are trying to provide a public service at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Lee: What about the beer price rise?

Mr. HANSON: That is scarcely analogous to the present legislation. I know the remark was made facetiously, and I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.

The working people in the community, like many other citizens, are very con­scious of the need to embark on a national fuel policy. With the enormous quantities of energy and fuels becoming available to us, it is fitting that we should examine closely what is happening. We must ensure that throughout Australia we adopt a policy by which employees engaged in fuel indus­tries, and industries depending on coal retain the status quo so that the economy may be preserved and so that jobs are kept open for the workers to serve the community to the best advantage.

Many people are aware of the new forms of power and I am sure they suffer con­siderable anxiety, fear and depression when they think about what may happen to their future employment. We must face up to this problem in Australia. In the U.S.A. natural gas is controlled by a Federal power commission, which has a stringent policy on price rates, exports and imports. Doubt­less there could be considerable argument on section 92 of the Commonwealth Con­stitution in any legislation to that effect, nevertheless it is of paramount importance for us to be national in our outlook. By doing so, we will render a great service to many people who for years have carried on in industries that are so dependent on present fuels. There is a need for those fuels and there is a need for industry to use them. I trust that the Bill will not jeopardise the employment of those worthy citizens. I shall reserve further remarks till the second­reading stage.

Mr. DONALD (Ipswich East) (5.10 p.m.): In introducing the Bill the Minister did not leave much scope either for criticism or for praise. He told us that the old franchise practice relating to gas companies will remain. I have no quarrel with that.

The hon. member for Rockhampton South said that the gas companies have given won­derful service to the community over the years. I remind him and other hon. mem­bers that if it had not been for the wonder·

2038 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

ful service given by the coal industry, the gas companies would not have been able to give wonderful service to the community. While protecting the long-established gas companies we should give consideration to protecting the coal-mining industry, which is an indigenous industry and has given won­derful service to the community.

The new companies will be given protec­tion and franchise-holders will be protected to the same extent as the old ones. I do not know if I interpreted the Minister cor­rectly, but does that give new companies the right to go into areas that are at present being served by the old companies? Will those new gas companies, or companies that will reticulate natural gas to consumers and industries, go to areas not at present served by the old companies and enjoy the privilege of being the sole purveyors of gas for domes­tic or industrial use in those areas, and will the old companies retain the sole right to sell gas where they are selling it now without interference from the new companies?

The Minister said there will be some pro­tection from oil. I was pleased to hear that. A Rosewood colliery proprietor suggested to me that if the gas companies built their works adjacent to the Rosewood coalfield they could supply gas cheaper than natural gas from Roma. This was shortly after we had visited the oil refinery at the mouth of the river. I told him that this refinery was burning waste gas-I do not know how many cubic feet­continually day and night, and that if the gas companies built their works there, there would be sufficient gas to eliminate all the existing gas companies.

The new companies are to be given pro­tection for five years after they have been given a franchise for the selling and supply­ing of bottled gas of over 100 lb .. weight or 240 cubic-ft. capacity. If this will benefit the consumer there is nothing derogatory we can say about it; nor would we wish to do so. But I should like to know what pro­tection the consumer will get.

At present the price of gas is fixed by the Gas Referee and apparently the consumers and the companies are satisfied with that system. If that is so, why must we have a different system to fix the price of natural gas? If the present formula is satisfactory to the consumer and the producer, why can it not be used by the company that is supplying natural gas? The Minister might be able to tell us why. The consumer must be given some protection if there is to be a change from the present method of fixing the price of P:as. If the gas companies are not at present l!iven the privilege of fixing the price of gas-I do not suggest they should be­whv should that privilege be given to these people who will be in competition with them?

It is said that the cost is to be fixed by the new company. Who wil'l fix the initial cost to the domestic and industrial con­sumers? Are they to wait till the profit is known, from which the pdce of gas will be

calculated? I do not know how this is to start, unless gas is supplied to the consumer for 12 months at an unknown price till a profit is known and a rate can be struck.

Again, what is to be considered a reason­able profit? We know that this will be a much more expensive undertaking than many people imagine. Many have the idea that all that is necessary is the laying of a pipe­line and its connection to a reticulation system. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt told us that the American people were more pleased and delighted with the discovery of natural gas than they were with the discovery of oil. Perhaps the same situation will apply here.

How is the initial price"fixing basis to be det·ermined? It is all very well to say that the price of gas will be determined from the profit made by the company. If the company is inefficient or strikes a lot of difficulties, the consumer will have to fay for its ~is­takes or mismanagement. am not saymg that the company will be inefficient; it has had plenty of experience abroad in the discovery and reticulation of oil. I do know that laying the pipeline to carry natural gas to the capital cities and elsewhere will be a much more difficult job than laying an oil pipeline; it will call for much more caref~l workmanship. It is well known that when 011 flowed through the pipeline from the Moonie oilfield to Brisbane many leaks were found. I am not saying that was the result of poor workmanship, because these things happen in the best-managed undertakings. In spite of the experience that the people doing the work have had overseas, particularly in America, there will be simHar mishaps in the gas pipeline.

Before becoming too enthusiastic about the discovery of oil and its uses, some thought must be given to people on the coalfields. Those in the Rosewood area will be the hardest hit. There are companies there that are not very wealthy but have undertaken great expenditure to bring their collieries up to date. They are stiH spending hundreds of pounds to enable them to satisfy the requirements of the users of coal. Are these people to be thrown to the wolves?

The Bill provides protection for the new companies. What about the coal companies, which have supplied the energy to enable the people of Queensland to have gas? Are they to be told, "We are advancing scientifically. Your industry is no longer needed, and yo~ will not be compensated for your expendi­ture even though you have not had an opportunity to mine sufficient coal to pay back what you borrowed from the Coal Board."?

Some of the general public seem to believe that once natural gas is discovered and is available in commercial quantities, there is nothing more simple than taking it to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, or Perth. I am not saying that that is merely

Gas Bill (2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2039

a pipe dream, because the possibility has been canvassed throughout the length and breadth of Australia.

It is said that this gas will be sold to the community at a lower price than the gas that the companies produce from coal or oil. That is not so. If one studies the question even superficially, one finds that only if natural gas can be sold at 3s. 4d. for 1,000 cubic feet­there are 10 therms in 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas, and I am taking 4d. a therm­will it be a very significant factor in supplying power for either domestic purposes or industry. Only by selling at that price will it be able to compete with crude oil, and I suggest that if it is sold above that price it will be undercut by fuel oil. That is some­thing that everyone has to understand.

While the Parliament is legislating to allow the companies to exploit this natural gas, it must be understood that they will meet the same fierce, unfair competition from oil that the coal-mining industry has met for so many years. They could be given assistance in that direction; ~he coal-mining industry could also be given assistance. If Govern­ments, both State and Federal, were courage­ous enough to make the oil companies adapt their refining processes, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested a few moments ago, there would be less residue of oil and the people of Queensland and Australia would not have to pay an excessive price for petrol in order to subsidise fuel oil to enable it to compete unfairly with the coal industry. Why is not the Government giving some attention to this instead of rushing in to help new companies to exploit the natural gas resources of the State and the people of Queensland?

The chances of producers being able to deliver natural gas at Australian capital cities (Hobart and Perth can be eliminated) at a competitive price are not remote-I concede that-but they are not as good as many people are inclined to believe. A sharp increase in the demand for gas would be necessary, and it is estimated that the demand would have to quadruple in five years to make the venture an economic success and gas would have to be available to the consumers uninterruptedly during the whole of that period.

So it is not just a question of discussing the introduction of the Bill, having it printed, discussing it on the second reading, consider­ing the clauses in CDmmittee, and then saying, "That is done. All we have to do now is harness the natural gas into the main pipe­line and then into the reticulation system, and everything in Australia will be lovely. We will be entering an era of prosperity; our economic problems will be overcome. We will have nothing to do but enjoy a higher standard of living, and the revenue from this natural gas will enable us to keep our children at school longer, give them a better education and send them to the university to get degrees that will qualify them to see that our industries generally function better than they do at present."

Unfortunately, it is not going to be as easy as that. Even if the development that is expected in some quarters-very opti­mistically, I believe-to follow the discovery of natural gas does take place, many estab­lished industries in which thousands of pounds have been invested, and which are at present giving the nation very good service, will be affected.

A thought has struck me while I have been speaking. Let me go back to World War 11, when we were at war with the Japanese nation. It is true that they did not get to Australia; it is true that, thanks to our own Australian boys and our allies, we were able to defeat the Japanese. Perhaps the Japanese Army-or nation-was not anxious to destroy Australia because it knew that if it was to exist as an economic unit-a large population on a small island-it would have to get its raw material from somewhere, and where better than Australia?

Since the end of the war, and in the fight for the peace, Japan has demonstrated her desire to exploit Australia to the limit, and she has been helped in that direction by short-sighted people who are looking only to the present, not to the future. Otherwise we would not be sending to Japan raw materials, some of which we have not in abundance, and getting them returned to us as manufactured articles; we would be spend­ing money ourselves setting up steelworks to exploit our deposits of iron-ore and hard coking coal. We would build a second steel­works in Australia. There is ample room here for a second one and we have the localities in which it could be built.

I recollect that when Broken Hill Pty. Ltd. started to build on the south coast of New South Wales, people said, "Fancy building a steelworks there on sand. Sand is no foundation at all. It will never be a success." B.H.P. has been a success both in Newcastle and in Wollongong in New South Wales, and if we gave the attention and the money necessary to establish a second steelworks in Australia we would do more to balance our economy and to make ourselves self-supporting than the dis­covery of natural gas will.

The discovery of natural gas may even assist us to develop our steel industry and no-one with any thought for the nation's welfare will dispute the fact that the steel industry is something upon which nations have been built. Our Mother Country built its greatness on coal and steel; Japan is doing the same thing at present, and we are helping her to expand. We are helping Japan in the economic race for survival by giving her our raw materials, without which she could not function.

Mr. Sullivan: What have you to say about Japan buying our wool?

Mr. DONALD: Japan cannot grow wool; we can grow it in abundance. If the hon. member who interjected wants to put an embargo on the export of wool to Japan,

2040 Gas Bill (ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

or to any other country, let him do so. We must sell our wool, every pound we can, in order to balance our international monetary commitments. The hon. member should know that. I do not know why he interjects; a man whose interests lie in primary industry suggests that we should not send our wool to Japan. We should send our wool to any country that needs it, par­ticularly those countries where people are ill-clothed and who want wool to manu­facture cloth. Of course we should send our wool to Japan! Surely the hon. member is not so ignorant of economics as to suggest that we should not export our wool. Where would we be if we did not? Wool is gmwn on the sheep's back; the sheep is shorn, and the wool grows again.

But that is quite a different thing from exporting iron-ore and coking coal, which we could use for manufacturing steel in Australia. Every ton of coal and iron-ore that is mined is a ton less we have of these valuable commodities which are so essential for the development of our nation. We have reached the position where Broken Hill Pty. Ltd. cannot supply all the steel we want for our own use. There was a time when it could, and when it supplied not only the cheapest steel in the world but the best; but because the Japanese have been acble to exploit very successfully our raw material, they have now supplanted Broken Hill as the best steel makers and the cheapest steel suppliers. At the moment we need articles that are manufactured in Japan from our raw materials to carry on many of our works in Queensland.

I hope that when the BiU is printed and we have an opportunity to peruse it, it will not be as bad as it appears and will not contain the difficulties I have envisaged. When it becomes law I hope that the interests of the consumer, as well as those of the producer, are protected. I also hope that some consideration is given to those people who have helped Queensland and Australia over the years, and have supplied the necessary energy to keep our industries moving successfully.

Mr. R. JONES (Cairns) (5.30 p.m.): The construction of pipelines, while an innova­tion in Australia, is an established form of transport in many other counrties. That being so, we must not overlook the social consequences arising from their construction, their use, and also their control. This is one of the most controversial and explosive ques­tions we could possibly be considering, or will have to deal with in this day and age.

At the outset, I would personally join issue in the most provocative and permissible manner possible, particularly with the com­ments of C. R. Hetherington & Co. on the question of the construction, and particularly the control, of pipelines, which could be ultimately agreed to by this Government.

After studying the recommendations they have made relative to the construction and control of pipelines, I say without hesitation and qualification that their recommendations

are the most partisan I have ever read. They have left no alternative to ownership or con­trol of pipelines. They are adamant that this is a matter for private enterprise alone. At page 1, paragraph 10, of their report, they say-

"It is believed that it is both unnecessary and undesirable for the Government of Queensland to involve itself in the gas reserve risk by participating in any finan­cing, and no Government participation is recommended."

So concerned are they at the likelihood of public ownership and control of pipelines that they have repeated this advice many times in their report. They elaborate on it at page 53.

Having made a fairly wide study of the ramifications of the oil monopoly, I must say that the recommendations relative to pipe­lines show the arrogance of the oil monopoly and its determination to control price, distri­bution and transport irrespective of the wel­fare of the consumers, the State or the public interest. While the disregard for the welfare of the people of Australia, which is so evident throughout the report, angered me, it did not surprise me. What the Oil monopolies, through their agents, Messrs. Hetherington & Co., are asking you to do is to disregard completely world opinion on this important matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campbell): Order! I hope the hon. member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. R. JONES: I searched in vain for a reference by them to the considered opinion of other responsible bodies. One is entitled to expect in a report which is for the guid­ance of the Government of a sovereign State and which was prepared at the request of the Government that the opinions and decisions of other responsible bodies would be men­tioned so as to ensure that any action taken would, after consideration of all opinions, be in the interests of the people and the State.

Their failure to draw attention to these decisions shows their disregard for the people and condemns them as partisan in the extreme, and should in my view considerably weaken any recommendations they have made on the question of pipelines.

If it has not come to your notice, Mr. Campbell, I suggest, before you make any findings that you study what I regard as a very scholarly account of the ramifications of the oil monopoly. The publication to which I refer is 'The Politics of Oil-How the industry works-How it gets its power-How it influences your Government and your daily life." It was written by Robert Engler, Professor of Political Science at Sarah Lawrence College, who was the winner of the Sidney Hillman A ward for a series of articles on "Oil and Politics" published in 1961. On the jacket cover the publishers say, amongst other things-

"The politics of oil may well be the single most important influence on our life as a nation.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2041

" ... the study shows how the petroleum industry has harnessed the Law, Govern­ment Machinery and public opinion to ends that directly challenge the aims of democratic society."

Commenting fmther on the work of Mr. Engler, the publishers ask-

" ... whether free men can curb the alarming growth of extra governmenta'l power."

As I have said, I am of opinion that no findings on the question of the construction and control of pipelines, together with the other ramifications of the oil industry, would be complete without a study of this important work. I will content myself with the following quotations from page 39-

"The major companies are fully integrated," and

"Rockefeller, the grand master of oil, had discovered he could dominate the world of oil by controlling the railroads, pipelines and refineries."

That is something, I suggest, that this Committee should guard against in its findings, despite the recommendations of Messrs. Hetherington & Company.

I refer now also to an I.L.O. report which studies the question of pipelines.

Mr. Camm: What is I.L.O.?

Mr. R. JONES: The International Labour Organisation; the counterpart of the United Nations, for the information of the Minister.

The question of pipelines was extensively dea:lt with at the meeting of the Inland Transport Committee held at Geneva in 1961 and is mentioned in the general report which I have referred to earlier in these submissions. The general report is that of the Director-General. I am sure these reports will be availa:ble to the Government and I do not propose to deal with what they contain, except to foreshadow some aspects of them which I will duly mention.

On page 127 it says-"Thus the pipelines may well capture

part of the present traffic and the increase in the volume of business expected by the railways, the road haulage industry, ... "

and other forms of transport. Would this be one of the reasons why the Queensland Government has been advised not to par­ticipate in the construction and control of pipelines? If there is no relationship, why the recommendation at page 76 of the report, which reads-

"Oil pipelines other than for purposes of permitting-it is not believed that there is need for regulation of oil pipelines."

My interpretation of this recommendation is that any scheme for the co-ordination of transport pipelines must be so exempt. I hope that such a proposal will nof be agreed to. If it is possible for them (the

oil companies) to do that, why is it not possible for the Government of Queensland to do so?

I return to the I.L.O. report on page 130, which says-

"The construction of pipelines is giving rise to problems for both the Railways and the Rhine Water Transport industry in Switzerland. An amendment to the Federal Constitution has been proposed to a:llow the Federal Government to adopt legislation on the subject."

On page 133 it is pointed out that in the U.S.A. the railway companies have set up their own pipelines. If that can be done by private railway companies in the U.S.A. why, then, is it not done by the Queensland Government, which owns the railways and could do likewise.

On page 139 of the report the following appears-

'IPipelines, too, have inevitably had to be extended across frontiers and have equally inevitably given rise to problems of inter­national co-operation."

Of c<mrse, that will not occur in Australia.

On pages 142 and 143 of the report important statements of principle are con­tained, one of which, in particular, I feel I should mention. It reads--

"The International Chamber of Com­merce, in particular, has for many years been the champion of transport co-ordination."

These references from such a body as the I.L.O., together with others I have not mentioned, but which are available in the report, will, I hope, be of assistance and should he'lp in the interests of the Aus­tralian railways-in particular, the Queens­land railways-and road transport companies in this State.

I draw attention to page 10 of the report, which reverts to the oil industry and devotes considerable space to transport. After dealing with the early history of the pipe­line the author says, among other things-

"Control over the means of oil trans­port has always been recognised by the large oil companies as indispensable to their hold over the industry. Standard Oil under Rockefeller conducted furious battles, often most violent, to prevent others from infringing their monopoly over rail and pipeline transport in the United States ... In the early days of the petroleum industry it was a vital means of crushing rivals who were rendered powerless without facilities for distribution and marketing."

That there has been no departure from this policy is clear from the report made to the Queensland Government. That, in my view, is why it has recommended private control of pipelines.

2042 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

Under no circumstances should we allow a situation to develop such as that described by a former Australian Prime Minister, Mr. W. M. Hughes, who, on 16 March, 1933, said-

"The oil trusts have exploited Australia in a way that appears, on the face of it, wholly unwarranted, and indeed out­rageous."

A noted Queensland geologist, Dr. H. I. Jensen, on 1 March, 1954, said-

"The oil search in the past has con­sisted mainly of pretence in keeping genuine seekers of oil out of all likely territory."

That Mr. W. M. Hughes and Dr. Jensen were not alone in their criticism and con­demnation of the way the oil companies prevented the discovery of oil is shown when the following statement by a former Cabinet member in the National Parliament, Mr. A. Cameron, M.R.H., is examined. Speaking in the Federal Parliament in 1939 on the Supply and Development Bill, he said-

"! entertain grave doubts as to the good faith of certain Oil Companies of Aus­tralia and New Guinea. I am inclined to believe that there has been a huge swindle of some sort in connection with the failure to discover oil in this country.

"I informed the previous Ministry that I considered that if as much money, time and energy had been devoted to the dis­covery of oil in Australia as has been expended by certain interests to prevent the discovery, we would have had adequate supplies long ago. If we are to proceed with mechanisation to which the Australian Military Forces appear to be committed, it is all the more necessary to have within our borders some sort of motive power."

I return now to a general consideration of the Bill. I maintain that I could dilate at some length on the political implications of this matter, but realising that that is not the purpose of this Committee I shall content myself by saying that the emerging countries -the Middle East and Asia-have decided that the natural resources which they have in abundance will be used to advance the living standards of their people instead of being used for profit and gain by foreign countries.

We must ensure that we in Australia do not become vassals of a foreign power. As profit is the incentive in the belated dis­covery of oil and gas in Australia, we can­not be unmindful of the demand of President Johnson of the U.S.A. that American business interests in foreign countries should remit more of their profits from overseas investments to the U.S.A., and the concern expressed by our Prime Minister at the effect this will have on the economy of Australia.

If we agree to the recommendations made to the Queensland Government, and reported on by Messrs. Hetherington & Company, this will aggravate the position so far as we are concerned.

Not only are we in Australia concerned. Concern is also shown overseas. The trade unions in Australia are not alone in their demand for a national fuel policy. The miners in Belgium, France, England and Scotland are, like workers in other countries, demanding a policy which will protect their interests.

The report of the 1964 Scottish Trade Union Congress shows the havoc that has been caused as a result of the use of oil instead of coal in public and other industries. Queensland is a coal-producing State, and a similar situation could result here. The Congress called for a national fuel policy to protect the economy and the jobs of workers in Scotland. The situation in Queensland is much the same.

The tendency in Australia to use more oil than coal is something that the Queensland Government has condoned, and it will be to the detriment of not only this State but Australia generally.

Mr. Camm: Say that again about the use of more oil being detrimental to Australia?

Mr. R. JONES: I say that the tendency of the Government in Queensland is to use more oil than coal.

Mr. Pizzey: The Leader of the Opposition was buying diesels when he was Minister for Transport.

Mr. R. JONES: This tendency is shown in a report issued this morning. There has recently been conversion in Cairns from the use of coal to oil, and this is also happening in Townsville.

Mr. Camm: Aren't the domestic users happier with that than they were when coal was used?

Mr. R. JONES: At present that is an unknown quantity. I know there have been some complaints in the area near the hospital in Cairns about effluent and smog issuing from the oil-burning furnaces at the hospital. There is considerable concern about it.

Mr. Camm: That is from the burning of oil, not gas.

Mr. R. JONES: The furnaces have recently been converted for the use of oil.

It is suggested that in Australia natural gas should be used instead of coal. I say that the results wil! be the same. Queensland is a great coal-producing State, and it will suffer if there is a complete change to gas and oil as sources of energy. Our own wealth apparently is to be sent to other countries who are exploiting this State.

The British Government changed its policy in certain sections of Scotland. One instance quoted in the report of the Scottish Trade Union Congress is that the use of coal instead of oil in the Longannet Power Station alone saved 10,000 mining jobs.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER] Gas Bill 2043

Many other interesting statements relative to a national fuel policy are contained in the report. I cannot let pass without comment the criticism of the Miners' Union, which appears at page 73, paragraph 5, of the report to the Government. I do so because the Miners' Union is in the transport group of unions and is under the auspices of the A.C.T.U. As a former trade union secretary, I am very interested in the trade union movement and feel that I am in as close touch with this union as any person could be. I therefore claim some knowledge of transportation problems and policy.

It is clear also that whilst Messrs. Hetherington and Co. have ignored or withheld information about other countries which was available to them in regard to a number of important matters that should have been covered in a report to the Government of a sovereign State, they have been advised of, or have been able to trace, information which they have used to attack an important trade union in Australia. That also is contained in the report. It would be interesting to know whether the actions and activities of the trade union movement were included in their terms of reference. I regard their criticism of and advice to the Miners' Union not only as bordering on impudence but as downright impertinence.

My feelings, after an intensive study of the report, are that instead of being objective it merely tells their principals, the oil com­panies, what they want to know, and that the authors were unable to distinguish between a report to a group of interested people and a report to a Government seeking advice which, if accepted, would have an impact on the people of Australia, both economic­ally and personally.

I can see nothing in the report that would benefit the people of Australia but much that could benefit the monopoly group that the authors represent. For that reason, I suggest that any recommendations they have made relative to oil or gas pipelines should be rejected.

I realise the importance of the task the Minister has undertaken in this matter, but I am more concerned about the effects that this action may have on Australia, and on Queensland in particular. It is not my inten­tion to offer advice or criticism until I have had an opportunity of studying the Bill, but I certainly shall have more to say about it at the second-reading stage.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (5.51 p.m.): I do not intend to delay the Com­mittee very long, but I wish to make a couple of very pertinent references to the proposed Bill and, in particular, to the gas companies in Queensland. The Biii, of course, deals not only with the gas that will be brought down in the pipeline, and oil gas, but also with all other forms of gas.

The Minister for Mines should have a look at some of the correspondence that I entered into with his predecessor, the late Ernie Evans, in connection with the Townsville Gas Company. I asked Mr. Evans a series of questions in the House on one occasion and he was absolutely amazed and astonished to learn that we in Townsville, even at that time, were paying 38s. a thousand for gas, while only 16s. a thousand was being paid in Brisbane. He had investigations and inquiries made and found there was very little he could do about it, although he was anxious to do quite a lot.

In a speech in the Chamber at the time, I told him what the circumstances were. I said that the Gas Referee came to Townsviiie once in a blue moon, looked at the balance sheet of the gas company, and said he con­sidered, in view of the fact that the company was not earning as much as it should, that the price of gas should be increased. In my opinion, the Gas Referee should go further than that. He should have the power to investigate the affairs of the gas company.

Mr. Murray: The efficiency of the gas com­pany.

Mr. AIKENS: Yes, the efficiency of the company. What happened in Townsville was monstrous. The gas mains were leaking, and it was the most inefficient gas-making com­pany in Australia, although it was a sub­sidiary of Colonial Gas Association (Qld.) Pty. Ltd.

On one occasion, Mr. Evans advised me that the Gas Referee would be at the court house at Townsville at a certain time on a certain day. I went along to see him and was told by the C.P .S. that the Gas Referee had been there, that he had stayed a few minutes and had then gone away with the manager of the local gas company. I could not see him. When I entered into corre­spondence on the matter with the late Mr. Evans, he told me, that, in accordance with the Gas Act, I really had no right to see the Gas Referee and that the public had no right to see him.

I do not know where t'he matter would have finished if the former gas company in Townsviiie had not sold out to the present company. It sold out several years ago, and since that time there have been substantial increases in costs-increases in wages, salaries, long service leave, sick pay, and so on-all of which have been absorbed by the present Townsville Gas Company, and the consumers are stiii paying the 38s. a thousand that they were when it took over. The fact that it has been able to absorb those increases in costs, some of which have been fairly substantial, shows how inefficient the old company was and how efficient the present company is.

In addition, when the former gas com­pany was in operation, because of the shock­ing condition of the gas mains throughout the city, very frequently we got a very poor pressure of gas and at times we got a gas

2044 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

of a very low calorific value. There was an old joke in Townsvil'le that you lit the gas jet and at the same time lit a candle under the kettle to make it boil.

If the Minister is p•epared to do what his predecessor was doing, he should con­duct an inquiry not into the present gas company-although I can see no reason why he should not do that in order to see it is maintaining efficiency-but into the affairs of the Townsville Gas Company before the present people took over in order to acquaint himse-lf of the shocking circumstances sur­rounding that company and of how it was allowed to get into such a position.

I understand that according to law-I can be corrected on this-gas companies are not allowed to pay a dividend of, I think, more than 8 per cent., so that it does not matter to the gas company how it gets its money as long as it can pay a full 8 per cent. dividend. Of course, people invest in gas ?Ompanies because there are sometimes 1ssues of bonus shares, appreciation of capital, and so on; but I understand that the dividend is tied to about 8 per cent. The Government thinks gas companies should not be allowed to pay excessive dividends; at the same time, the Government thinks they should be able to exploit the people by allowing their plant to reach such a stage of inefficiency that the people are paying a high price for an unsatisfactory, low-pressure gas of low calorific value.

I do not think there has been a more shocking example of inefficiency of control than was displayed by the former gas company in Townsville. I think the Minister should look at the Bill, and if it is not in the Bi'll at present he may be able to do it by regulation; but he should give the public, or at least the public's representatives, such as members of Parliament, union repre­sentatives and others the right to go to the Gas Referee and ask him for a full and complete investigation into the affairs and business of any gas company.

What is the use of sending a Gas Referee to a gas company and having him look only at the balance sheet and say to the manager, "I see you are running at a loss. The only thing we can do to offset the loss is to grant you an increase in gas price." That was happening in Townsvi'lle.

Mr. Hanlon: On a cost-plus basis.

Mr. AIKENS: It was any sort of a cost­plus basi,s; it was a weird arrangement. I am not sitting in personal judgment upon the Gas Referee because according to a letter I received, that is all he is required to do. I am sorry I did not bring it down with me-I have it in my own file at home -but perhaps the Minister may have a copy on the departmental records. However, that is all that the Gas Referee is required to do by law, and I think that the law, if it has not a:lready been amended and is not amended by this Bill, should be altered by

amendment or regulation. The Gas Referee or some other instrumentality of the Govern­me·nt should be able to examine the efficiency of a gas company and call upon it to use efficient measures in controlling production and distribution. In addition, the people or their representatives should be allowed to question the Gas Referee and at times be present when he is conferring with represen­tatives of the gas company.

[Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.]

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (7.15 p.m.), in reply: I thank hon. members for their con­tributions on the introduction of this measure, and I would like to reply specifically to some of them.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed to be concerned about the price that the franchise-holders will charge for their gases. As I said in my introductory speech the maximum price to be charged is based on a percentage of their assets and is governed by the amount they can pay as a dividend to the shareholders.

The profits earned by the gas suppliers in any year, after meeting all the bona fide expenses, including taxation incurred in the operation of their undertakings, shall not be in excess of what is allowed under the Bill. That is a certain percentage over and above the current rate of interest applicable to Government bonds.

Naturally, if it was only based on a per­centage of their assets, some of the prices that could be charged would be excessive, but, when prices are restricted to a per­centage of the dividend, more control can be exercised than at present.

I assure the hon. member for Kedron that no restriction will be imposed on the present franchise-holders in their areas. The Bill provides that the Governor in Council can determine the price of reticulated gas in the franchise areas. It will be more economical and cheaper for the consumers. If natural gas is to be supplied, the franchise-holder can be checked on the price to be charged.

I stress that L.P.G. could well become a product derived from oil produced in Queens­land. When L.P.G. is being compared with coal as a source of gas supply, it is well to remember that the oil from which the L.P.G. is derived could be oil that is produced in Queensland. No preferential treatment will be given to the producers of L.P.G. In the first place the franchise-holders are allowed to choose which gas they will reticulate through their pipelines. No pressure will be brought to bear on a franchise-holder to use liquefied petroleum gas. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and many other Opposition speakers, made a mistake in referring to natural gas. The Bill has nothing to do with the extraction of natural gas and its delivery by pipeline to Brisbane.

The hon. member for Rockhampton South made a very sound contribution to the debate and ably analysed the principles in the Bill.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER) Gas Bill 2045

The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt indicated how important gas can become as a source of power. He pointed out that throughout the world, natural gas and gas derived from petroleum are rapidly taking the place of coal gas. Natural gas is also being used as a source of power in many other fields. Some experts advise that it is wasteful to burn natural gas, as it has so many uses as a feed stock in petro-chemical industries, if they can be established. They say that it is far more valuable when used as a feed stock.

I emphasise that a franchise is given gener­ally for the reticulation of gas through pipes. The franchise-holders have the sole right of distribution of gas through pipes and for the first five years of their fran­chise they have the right to distribute L.P.G. in containers of any size. Their competitors are limited to containers of 100-lb. capacity. We believe that this provision should hasten the laying of pipes by the franchise-holders because it is far neater to distribute gas through pipes than in gas bottles. We believe that the franchise-holders should have that protection for the first five years of the franchise to enable them to lay their pipes. After that period competition from outside sources will have to be met, and the manu­facturers of L.P.G. in this State will compete for the business of franchise-holders. Very few manufacturers of L.P.G. are distributors. They produce it and distribute it through a distributing company.

The hon. member was also worried about price. When he peruses the Bill he will realise that we have given the Gas Examiner, who inspects the efficiency of the reticulation system of a franchise holder, the Gas Referee and an officer from the Auditor-General's Department the right to inspect all the com­pany books associated with trading in gas. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that the price of gas to the domestic user will not be prohibitive.

The price fixed by the Gas Referee is the maximum price that can be charged. If any franchise-holder supplying bottled gas in an outlying area is charging too high a price, he is open to competition from any outside body.

The books of the companies can be made open to the Gas Examiner and representa­tives of the Auditor-General's Department.

I can assure the hon. member for Port Curtis that the Governor in Council can exclude certain areas from a franchise. He can also see that unsatisfied customers are supplied with gas from another undertaking. The Bill ensures that the public will be well served in the supply of gas. If 20 or more residents complain that the company will not reticulate gas to them by pipes, the Minis­ter can order an examination by the Gas Examiner and the Gas Referee, and if they find that the demand is justified, the Minister can have the pipes constructed and charge the franchise-holder for it.

66

In outlying areas the franchise-holder has the privilege of supplying gas in containers.

If the franchise-holder is remiss in the conduct of his franchise, the Minister has power to withdraw or cancel part of the franchise area.

The hon. member for Ipswich East made out a very good case for the men employed in the coal industry in his district. The coal­owners and coal-miners in his area are very concerned about the effect the introduction of natural gas will have on their livelihood. I can assure the hon. member that if natural gas comes to Brisbane and results in a lesser demand for coal for gas-making purposes we will do all in our power to find alternative markets for coal, and so soften the impact on the coal-owners and coal-miners.

The hon. member asked whether the old companies with franchises for the supply of gas in Queensland will retain the right to operate in their franchise areas. The Bill stipulates that the present holders of franchi'3es will enjoy the conditions outlined in the Bill. New franchises will be granted in areas, towns and districts which at present are not served by gas.

The hon. member indicated that, from his observation of the burning of natural gas on the Roma field, it must be a very cheap commodity. I remind him that construction of the pipeline will be a costly undertaking. The use of natural gas will necessitate the changing of all burners in present gas appliances. A very large capital investment will be required before natural gas can be used in Brisbane, and on the volume con­sumed will depend whether it will be cheaper than coal gas. Naturally it will not be dearer as it then would be uneconomic to pipe it. The fact that surplus gas is burnt at present at Roma does not mean that it will be a very cheap fuel.

The difficulties that the producers of gas are encountering in financing the construc­tion of a pipeline to Brisbane and establish­ing markets for the gas indicate that a fair return must be offered to any company before it will undertake heavy expenditure.

Mr. Davies: Has it been decided that the pipeline will come to Brisbane?

Mr. CAMM: No. I said earlier that in some countries natural gas is regarded as too valuable to be burnt. In other countrie-s domestic consumers have fipst right to its supply. Some natural gas is very high in sulphur content and is very valuable in the manufacture of ferti'liser.

The hon. member for Ipswich East accused the Government of rushing in and helping new companies to exploit the natural resources of ~he State. I do not think that charge can be sustained. Certainly the Government welcomes companies that wish to bring capital here and mine and market the products of the State. If the Govern­ment, with its rather limited resources, was

2046 Gas Bill [ASSEMBLY] Gas Bill

called upon to spend the considerable sums of money that overseas companies are investing in Queensland at present, it would be many years before we could hope to obtain the development in the mining industry that has taken place during the last eight or nine years.

Liquefied petroleum gas has taken the place of coal gas in many areas far removed from Brisbane. Quite recently I had the privilege of opening a duplicated L.P.G. plant in Mackay. It is a plant that covers an area about ha.lf the size of this Chamber and is capable of supplying the gas demands of Mackay for many years to come. I think every member in the Chamber knows the inconvenience suffered by people who live near gas.works. I assure them that anyone who lives within 20 yards of the new liquefied petroleum gas plant at Mackay will not have any discomfort. It is very clean and well organised, and it appears to be very easy to run. That is why liquefied petroleum gas has taken the place of coal gas in so many centres in Queensland and, indeed, in other countdes.

As the hon. member for Ipswich East knows, coal has proved to be the most economical fuel for the generation of electricity, provided powe!'houses are built on the coalfields, and I think the Government is to be commended for its policy of building huge powerhouses on the coalfields of Queensland.

Mr. Aikens: You finally found out that it is cheaper to take the powe;:house to the point of consumption than to take the coal to the powerhouse.

Mr. CAMM: This Government has a habit of finding things out. Over the years it will discover many things that will be of benefit to those who use power in Queensland. The new. p~werhouses being built at Calcap, Collmsv1lle and Swanbank will, I am sure, prove to be a wonderful medium for the consumption of coal, about which the hon. member for Ipswich East seems to be very worried. I share his concern that the intro­duction of these new types of fuel should not bring unemployment to men in his area.

In my opinion the hon. member went a little bit too far when he criticised the Government's policy on the export of coal to Japan. He mentioned iron ore, too, but no iron ore is exported from Queensland. I wonder whether the hon. member, if he had his way, would place an embargo on the export of coking coal from Queensland to Japan. Companies have come to this State and spent many millions of pounds, and this week negotiations have been completed with Utah Development Co. for the mining of coal in the Blackwater area.

Mr. Davies: He would probably support the establishment of a steel mill in Queens­land.

Mr. CAMM: As the Government has supported and encouraged the mining of these huge coal deposits, so it will support and encourage the establishment of a steel industry in Queensland.

Mr. Duggan: You did not do very much to get a smelting industry for the alumina here.

Mr. CAMM: I know that Press reports indicate that an aluminium refinery is to be established near Newcastle. That will be for the good of the people of Australia as a whole, and it is very satisfying to know that much of the material used in that refinery will be mined at Weipa and pro­cessed to a certain stage at the alumina plant at Gladstone. If the hon. member for Ipswich East had his way in regard to the capital inflow from overseas countries, Queensland would not have even the alumina plant at Gladstone. In my opinion it will not be very long before there is an aluminium refinery in Queensland. However, at present it is cheaper to send alumina to Newcastle in bulk than it is to send the ingots of manu­factured aluminium from Gladstone to Sydney.

Mr. Ramsden: That is the fault of the wharfies.

Mr. CAMM: It is the high cost of handling the manufactured article with waterside labour. I do not say that in disparagement of the waterside workers, but the raw material can be handled in bulk and the manufactured article has to be handled manually. One cannot blame the company, if its finished product can be landed in Sydney at a far cheaper price by establishing a smelter at Newcastle. We are very sorry that it could not see its way clear to construct a smelter at Gladstone but, as I said earlier, it will not be too many years before we have one in Queensland.

I disagree with the criticism of the hon. member for Ipswich East of our policy of exporting coal to Japan. We have tremendous reserves of coking coal, as well as reserves of steaming coal that surprise many overseas mining companies when they come here. Let me say to the rest of the people in the world that we have thousands of millions of tons of coal. Are we going to keep it here until we, as a Government, have sufficient money to establish our own steel industry? All expert estimates show that even with the export of coking coal Queensland will still have immense reserves in 500 or 600 years and who knows whether there will then not be an alternative source of fuel to coal, natural gas, or L.P.G.

To its credit this Government has been able to encourage and persuade these overseas companies to come here and expend huge sums of money. At Blackwater they will establish an industry and a township with amenities for the workers of the State. Surely members opposite should be pleased to have this further source of employment for Queensland workers.

Gas Bill [2 DECEMBER] Tobacco Industry, &c., Bill 2047

The hon. member for Cairns had a very well-prepared screed, but the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the construction of a a pipeline from the natural gas deposits near Roma. He quoted from the Hetherington Report and he quoted the critics of that report. But we have not yet decided whether or not we will adopt the Hetherington Report. I do not think anyone has ever indicated here that the Hetherington Report has been adopted by the Queensland Government. It is a good report and contains a great deal of information of benefit to the State, but to stand up and quote the report and critics of it is quite irrelevant because, as I say, it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

If what the hon. member read in the way of criticism of that report is an outline of the policy of the A.L.P. in Queensland, we can understand why Labour Governments were never able to encourage anyone to come to our State and spend money on the mining of coal, oil or gas. If that is their policy, Queensland would be in a worse state of stagnation now than it was when this Government came to power.

Mr. Ramsden: He is putting forward the extreme left-wing view.

Mr. CAMM: Whether he is putting forward the extreme left-wing policy or the policy of the A.L.P., I do not know. What the hon. member read out proves why Queensland never went ahead while his Government was in power. What Government could spend £53,000,000 on building an alumina plant at Gladstone? The only money we have to spend is the taxpayers' money-money we collect from the people of Queensland and Australia. If we spent £53,000,000 on one plant, no money would be left for education and main roads.

Mr. R. Jones: You spent £30,000,000 on that line to Mt. Isa.

Mr. CAMM: Of course we did, and it was a good undertaking because it was something for the State. There are companies here who will spend £12,000,000 exploring for oil. I can name half a dozen in which people can invest their money, thereby making them purely Australian concerns. They are open to shareholders anywhere in Australia. We as a Government have not sufficient money or capital to embark on industrial under­takings. These companies provide work for manv Queenslanders and at the same time pav royalties for the benefit of the people of this State. We will certainly give those com­ranies every encouragement.

The Bill deals with L.P.G. and eventually all gas used here could be a product of Queensland. Further exploration for oil will be encouraged and the L.P.G. used in Queensland could be mined here.

The hon. member for Townsville South will be happy when he reads the Bill and sees the control we have on the price to be

charged by franchise companies. We have the power to examine the books, and the power to stipulate the maximum price to be charged for gas. The Gas Examiner can investigate the operations of gas companies, to determine whether management is efficient.

Mr. Aikens: Have you given him power to compel the efficient management of their plants?

Mr. CAMM: If a group of people is not satisfied with the supply of gas, the Governor in Council has the power to dictate to the company that it should supply gas at a cheaper price. If it is not supplying it to an area, we can excise the area from the fran­chise and give it to someone else.

Motion (Mr. Camm) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Camm, read a first time.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY STABILISATION BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(Mr. Campbell, Aspley, in the chair)

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Labour and Industry) (7.52 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced relating to the stabilisation of the tobacco industry."

This Bill is one that I am indeed happy to introduce. I doubt if there is one member of this Chamber who has not been troubled during the last year by persistent reports of tobacco industry problems. These problems have been very real and they are not easy ones to overcome. I am not claiming that the Bill I am introducing will solve all our tobacco problems but it is a beginning and I think it is a very sound beginning. It will probably take a year or two for the industry to settle down properly. I hope that once this occurs we will have seen the last of the seemingly endless arguments and crises.

Hon. members will already have heard enough of the proposed tobacco industry stabilisation scheme to know that it involves some limitation of the industry. I should like to make it quite clear that this Bill involves the introduction of quotas for tobacco growers. These quotas are marketing quotas under the protection of a Common­wealth Government undertaking. The Bill will in no way prevent anyone from growing tobacco or growing in excess of his quota, but anyone who does so will run the risk of not being able to sell it profitably. The quotas provided for in the Bill are never­theless a form of restriction, and I do not think anyone likes restrictions if they can be avoided. In view of this, I feel that

2048 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

I should give hon. members some background to the stabilisation proposals so that they can judge the position for themselves.

Tobacco leaf production in Australia has expanded rapidly since 1948. The rate of growth can best be illustrated by a few figures. In 1948-49, when we first set up the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board, Australian production was only 3,400,000 lb. By 1958-59 it had risen to 13,900,000 lb. The 1964-65 crop, which was the last crop before stabilisation was introduced on an interim basis, was nearly 35,000,000 lb. Not all of the 1964-65 crop was sold. Sales total some 31,500,000 lb.

With this rapid growth in production came quite a number of problems. On the growing side, the big influx of new and often inexperienced growers, coupled with a tendency in some cases to produce on marginal soils, resulted in some increase in the lower grades of leaf.

On the manufacturing side, there was strong opposition by some manufacturers to the rapid change in blends which became necessary. The percentage of Australian leaf which manufacturers had to use in cigarette blends to qualify for concessional duty on leaf imports rose from 3 per cent. in 1952 to 15t per cent. by July 1958, and to 43 per cent. by July 1962. Because of claims by manufacturers that there was insufficient Australian leaf available to meet this per­centage, the figure was subsequently reduced by the Commonwealth Government to 40 per cent. for 1963-64, and raised to 41t per cent. for 1964-65. The percentage remained at 41t per cent. until the end of March this year.

As a result of the stabilisation agreement, the Commonwealth announced that the per­centage for both cigarettes and cut tobaccos would be progressively increased to 50 per cent. by 1 January, 1966. The present level is 47 per cent. These percentages are of paramount importance because they are the major influence on the quantity of leaf sold by growers. That is the general background.

The particular problem facing growers at the start of the series of negotiations on the present stabilisation scheme was even more serious. The blending percentage then stood at 4H. This was equivalent to about 23,000,000 lb. green weight of leaf which, by the way, is the term used to describe leaf which has been cured but not re-dried. The difference between cured and re-dried leaf is about 6 per cent. That is leaf as it is delivered for sale by the grower.

It is obvious from the few figures I have quoted that production by 1964-65 was well in excess of the quantity manufacturers needed to meet the 41 t per cent. This resulted in a tremendous build-up in surplus stocks in the hands of manufacturers, who hold a normal stock of Australian leaf, equal to 18 months' usage. This is to allow for maturation of the leaf. However, at the start of the last selling season manufacturers

were holding an additional stock of about 14,000,000 lb. of leaf above their requirement at 41t per cent.

This brings us to the core of the problem which existed at the start of the past season when stabilisation negotiations were under way. With an annual usage figure of only about 23,000,000 lb. green weight at 41 t per cent., and a surplus stock figure of around 14,000,000 lb., the tobacco grower was in a very vulnerable position; perhaps I should say a very dangerous position. Even if manufacturers had been prepared to buy considerably more than necessary to meet the blending percentage, a good deal of leaf would undoubtedly have remained unsold. Summing up the position, the alternatives were chaos on the one hand or stabilisation on the other.

As hon. members will be aware from answers to questions asked in the House dur­ing recent months, the stabilisation scheme is based on an Australian quota of 26,000,000 lb. green weight of leaf. It might well be asked, "Why only 26,000,000 lb. when we are sup­plying barely 50 per cent. of the market?" The answer is simple-that was the best we could get. Queensland pressed for an Aus­tralian quota of 28,000,000 lb. but we had to settle for 26,000,000 lb. We do not always get all we want in negotiations of this sort.

At the same time, we must recognise that the Commonwealth Government also has its problems in introducing schemes of this type. Australia is a trading nation, and we cannot afford to overlook that fact. There was also the very serious problem of absorbing the surplus stocks held by manufacturers. The present scheme provides for this to be done over four years. One of the seasons con­cerned is already over-the one just passed­and I must point out that the Commonwealth completely honoured its undertaking by insisting that all quota leaf be taken up by manufacturers.

Tobacco surplus problems are not confined to Australia. A recent United States official publication gives the quantity of flue-cured tobacco leaf there under Government loan as 869,000,000 lb. One-fifth of this quantity is from crops as far back as 1957 to 1961. Perhaps not many people realise that there is a fairly stringent form of production control in America. That country was working on an acreage allotment system but has recently changed to a weight system, which is closer to our plan.

Another point I should like to make before going into detail on the Bill deals with quality. There seems to be a general impres­sion that the quality of Australian tobacco leaf is not very good. This is a totally wrong impression; the quality of our leaf is very good. Perhaps this wrong impression is due to the fact that most of the publicity the industry receives occurs when there is some argument over the lower grades of leaf.

This is something that the industry itself should look into. Cigarettes seem mostly to be advertised as being made from "Virginian

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2049

leaf". The public should be made aware of the fact that half the tobacco in their cigar­ettes is Australian-grown. Its quality is equal to that of most leaf produced overseas, and better than a lot of it. No country in the world produces all top-grade leaf, hence the big stockpile in America.

I shall now deal with the main points of the stabilisation scheme. The Commonwealth has undertaken to ensure the sale of up to 26,000,000 lb. of leaf of acceptable grades each year for four years, if it is available. The first season is already over, and there are three more to go. The last season covered by the present undertaking is 1967-68. We hope that the scheme will then be extended further and that the quantity will be increased.

The Commonwealth has also undertaken to ensure that the average price of this quota leaf will not be less than 125d. a lb. based on a normal-quality crop. In practice, "normal quality" has been determined by taking an average of the fallout of grades over the three years prior to the start of the scheme. This means that if a grower pro­duces better than average quality leaf, he will average better than 125d. Of course, if he produces leaf below average quality, he will get less. With growers on a fixed quota, the only way they can increase their income is by improving quality. The scheme puts a definite premium on quality, and this should answer any criticism on that score.

The Australian quota of 26,000,000 lb. has been divided among the three producing States-Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales. This division was made on the basis of the average quantity of leaf sold by each State during the five years up to and includ­ing 1964.

Mr. Houston: What income would you expect an average grower to get under the stabilisation scheme on his quota?

Mr. ROW: The quotas are variable. They are based on production in the best two years out of the last four, with an adjust· ment. Some quotas are as low as 2 or 3 tons; some are as high as 30 or 40 tons.

There was some adjustment between New South Wales and Victoria to cover growers who had moved across the border into Vic­toria during the base period.

The basis of allocation among States was agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council and is quite fair and reasonable. Queensland's quota is 14,000,000 lb., whilst Victoria has 9,662,000 lb. and New South Wales 2,338,000 lb. The allocation of the State quota among growers is purely a matter for the State concerned. It is expected, how­ever, that a similar basis will be used by each State.

The whole scheme is dependent upon the passing of complementary legislation by the Commonwealth and the three tobacco-pro. ducing States.

Mr. Bromley: Who will decide whether or not the leaf is of good quality?

Mr. ROW: The Tobacco Leaf Marketing Boards have appraisers who decide on leaf grade and price. If the leaf is not bought by the tobacco companies, the Commonwealth arbiter arbitrates on the grade. If it is on the price and grade schedule, it must be taken by the manufacturers.

The Commonwealth recently brought down legislation setting up an Australian Tobacco Board. The Bill sets out to cover four basic aspects of the scheme. These are-

1. To give the Australian Tobacco Board the powers necessary for it to function effectively;

2. To set up a tobacco quota committee to allocate quotas to growers;

3. To set up an appeals tribunal to which growers may appeal against decisions by the tobacco quota committee; and

4. To provide a general basis for the regulation of tobacco quotas.

The Bill itself is in seven parts. Part 1 covers the usual formal matters such as short title, date of coming into operation, definitions, etc. It also protects the operation of the present State board and at the same time enables it to act as agent for the Australian board and to take directions from the Aus­tralian board regarding sale of quota leaf. It also provides for the State board to nominate one of its grower-members for appointment to the Australian board.

Part 2 of the Bill is very brief and merely confers the necessary power on the Aus­tralian board to give directions to the State board regarding sale of leaf.

I draw the Committee's attention particu­larly to clause 9 of the Bill. This gives the Governor in Council power to suspend by Order in Council the reference of powers to the Commonwealth board. It is merely a pro­tection in case anything goes wrong, and I hope it will never be needed.

The Australian board itself is set up under the Commonwealth Act, not under this Bill. The board will consist of-

A Commonwealth chairman. Four manufacturer representatives (one

from each company); Four grower representatives; and Three State Government representatives,

one each from Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales.

Part 3 of the Bill provides for the setting up of a Tobacco Quota Committee con­sisting of three grower representatives with an officer of my department as chairman.

Most of the clauses in this part relate to the administration of the committee but it also contains the general powers of the committee in regard to obtaining information.

Part 4 of the Bill provides for the setting up of an appeals tribunal which shall con­sist of three members, namely-

A barrister-at-law or a stipendiary magistrate or former magistrate, as chair­man;

2050 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

One independent Government nominee; and

One person to be selected from a panel nominated by the State board-that is, a grower nominee.

The tribunal will have the same powers as a commission of inquiry under the Commis­sions of Inquiry Act, with the exception of those powers which are confined to judges.

Part 5 of the Bill provides for the regula­tion of quotas. Provision is made that a quota holder must be either the owner or lessee of the land concerned or be able to satisfy the committee that he has a sufficient interest in the land to warrant being given a quota.

There are some very unusual arrangements in the tobacco industry, and this provision is designed to ensure that no genuine tobacco farmer misses out. The quotas will attach both to the land and to the quota-holder. This is considered necessary to prevent any trafficking in quotas. A grower will, how­ever, if the case is genuine, be able to have his quota transferred on application to the committee.

Provision has also been made for inter­state transfers. Naturally, no-one will object to a quota coming into the State, and this is the most likely movement. Before a quota can be transferred out of the State, ministerial approval must also be obtained. In order to ensure that quotas do not lie idle, the committee is empowered to call upon a grower who consistently fails to produce his quota to show cause why it should not be reduced or forfeited. Quotas may, of course, be increased whenever neces­sary or practicable.

In order to speed up the allocation of quotas and to avoid unnecessary paper work for growers, provision has been made for the committee to act on applications which were made to the Interim Quota Committee set up this year. Perhaps I should explain that earlier in the year I approved of the setting up of an Interim Quota Committee to investigate the whole position and to give growers an idea of their likely quotas. This was done to speed up the process and to get the necessary data on which to base quota allocations. The basis of membership of this Interim Quota Committee was the same as that proposed for the Statutory Com­mittee proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Sullivan: One thing that interests me is why the quotas are, as you say, for Queensland 14 million lb., New South Wales 2! million lb. and Victoria 9 million lb. Were those quotas determined on climate, or soil, or what?

Mr. ROW: They were determined by the Australian Agricultural Council, based on the average of the last five years' production in each State.

Mr. Sullivan: Does Queensland lend itself, through climatic conditions and soils, to better production?

Mr. ROW: I think we were indeed fortu­nate that the other two States agreed to the five years' average because, had we been reduced to a three years' average, as Victoria increased production considerably over the past three years she would have got a higher quota.

The allocation of quotas amongst growers is a very difficult business. Naturally, nearly everyone would like more than he can possibly get out of a 14,000,000 lb. State quota. Once we have to decide between the merits of various claims we have a real problem on our hands. Every case is different. Very few farms are alike. If we try to lay down too many rigid rules we will eliminate applications which should not be eliminated.

We must, of course, have some rules, but they need to be fairly flexible. This is where the appeals tribunal comes in. It is there to afford protection to the grower against any unjust decision by the quota committee. The grounds for appeal have been made fairly wide. These grounds are-

1. That the decision of the committee was not in accordance with the Act;

2. That the decrsion of the committee was manifestly unfair; and

3. That the decision of the committee would cause severe personal hardship to the appellant.

I think these grounds should be adequate to enable any grower with a genuine case to have his appeal heard.

Part 6 of the Bill sets out the rights which attach to a grower's basic quota and the broad basis on which his adjusted quota is to be determined.

I feel I should explain the difference between a basic quota and an adjusted quota. A grower's basic quota is the reference point on which his rights are determined. In short, it establishes his equity in the Queensland quota. A grower's adjusted quota is con­cerned with actual quantities. There will always be some shortfalls. Some growers will not produce their quotas. A whole State may not produce its quota, as is the case this year. These shortfalls will have to be distributed for the year over other growers who have surplus leaf. This is where the adjusted quota comes in. It is something which cannot be spelt out beforehand.

Mr. Houston: Does that apply only to the one year?

Mr. ROW: Yes. It is proposed that short­falls-this is very important-in any selling­floor area be first reallocated proportionately to other growers in the same selling-floor area. If they cannot be fully made up that way, they will go to the other selling-floor area in Queensland. There are two selling­floor areas in Queensland, one at Mareeba and the other at Northgate. If the whole of Queensland cannot meet the shortfalls, then, of course, they will go to the other States in

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2051

proportion to their State quotas. As I say, there are two selling floors in Queensland, and there is one in Victoria.

If some growers in North Queensland fall short, then other growers in North Queens­land will have first call on those shortfalls. The same will apply to South Queensland. All this will be tied to growers' basic quotas.

Part 7 of the Bill covers the general provisions such as regulation-making powers and penalties. The penalties proposed are fairly clearcut. The main offence will be delivering or trying to deliver non-quota leaf as quota leaf. Since the financial advantage which a grower would achieve if he succeeded in doing this could be very substantial, the proposed penalty is accordingly fairly sub­stantial. A £500 maximum is provided for such offence. For other offences against the Act a £50 maximum is provided, with a continuing penalty of up to £5 per day for continued refusal to furnish information required. As far as possible, detailed pro­visions have been made in the Act itself instead of leaving it all to regulations.

Because of the variation from farm to farm and the fact that the situation as it relates to quotas can change at fairly short notice, some points will have to be covered by regulation. Shortfalls, for example, cannot be established until after a crop is harvested. Consequently, it would be impossible to cover these in the Act itself. If the allocation of basic quotas was made too rigid we would not be able to deal effectively with any increase in State quota. As I said earlier, the protection afforded by the appeals tribunal is the real safeguard in these matters.

As to the actual allocation of basic quotas, the position is that the great majority of growers have been in the industry for some years and are still registered producers.

Mr. Adair: Will the quotas they have now be the total amount they will get?

Mr. ROW: That is their basic quota.

Mr. Adair: They will carry on with them now?

Mr. ROW: Yes, until some further adjust­ment is made.

Quotas will be allocated to these growers on the basis of their best two years' sales during the four years 1960-61 to 1963-64. Where any growers' sales during this period averaged less than 5 tons-that is 10,000 lb. worked on short tons-no cut will be applied. The quantity in excess of 5 tons will be reduced by a standard percentage. This works out at 39 · 6 per cent.

Applications from growers who have bought in since 1963-64 will be considered on their merits. We recognise that 5 tons would be a desirable minimum to aim at, but this will not be possible in all cases. There just is not enough State quota to enable us to do this. Some growers iust have not the necessary area; others are sideline pro­ducers and some have cane assignments. In

the case of cane assignments, the grower must have sold tobacco leaf during the last two years before he will be considered, unless there is some very special circumstance.

Water, soils and rotation will have to be taken into account. A rotation of one year in three seems necessary to maintain soil fertility and quality, but even this cannot be rigidly applied in the case of very small farms. A good deal of discretion will have to be exercised by the quota committee. As I said earlier, allocating quotas among pro­ducers is not an easy business, but I do not see that there is any alternative, other than chaos.

On the brighter side, I have been informed :hat a substantial measure of agreement has now been reached between manufacturers and !!rowers on the grade schedule. I hope this means that at next year's sales we will not have the same farcical situation as that which existed at this year's sales.

Mr. DUGGAN (foowoomba West­Leader of the Opposition) (8.24 p.m.): We have a very high personal regard for the Minister. He is very co-operative and intro­duces his measures in a reasonable way. We do not lightly go out of our way unnecessarily to attack him personally.

Our thoughts on this legislation are that the State Government has been more than dilatory in trying to afford some relief to what is, admittedly, a very difficult and com­plex problem. It is indeed difficult to ensure an expanding tobacco industry in this State under conditions which will enable people to use the water and other resources made available by State Governments, and to see that proper wage conditions apply to those who are not owner-operators on tobacco f8rms so that their standard of living is 8cceptable, and so that we may progressively increase the Australian content in tobacco consumed in this country to the point where ultimately we can become independent of the need to import foreign-grown tobacco.

A Government Member: It is a Common­wealth matter.

Mr. DUGGAN: It is very easy to say it is a Commonwealth matter, but it is not a Commonwealth matter when hundreds of angry tobacco-growers in the Texas and Mareeba area threaten to burn their tobacco, or to take it back to their farms, and express strong condemnation of the Government­whether Federal or State, or both-because of its failure to resolve their problems. In those circumstances, it is not much satisfac­tion to the people resident in the various tobacco-growing areas of the State to know that this is a Commonwealth matter.

It appeared to the Australian Labour Party that the present Government was slow to direct the attention of the Federal authorities to the plight of the tobacco-growers in Australia. It was only when this mobilisa­tion of discontent on the part of the tobacco­growers became sufficiently vocal and was

2052 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

taken up by the Press that we had the first indication of a de-sire on the part of the respective State and Commonwealth Govern­ments to get to grips with this problem, which is far from being one of easy solution.

I suppose that this calling attracts a greater number of European migrants than any other calling in Australia. They have a love for the land. They have seen or read, or heard from their forbears, of the ravages which have taken place in Europe when their countries have been overrun, their possessions taken, their buildings razed to the gmund, and their agricultural lands upturne-d by the raining down of bombs. So, above everything else, they want an estate in land and are prepared to make many sacrifices to get it.

Whether they are operating as share­farmers or have fallen victims to the specious pleadings of people selling land that is con­sidered suitable for tobacco-growing, because of that de·sire to own land, they have become the victims of people who have put to them propositions which are quite onerous and have made it virtually impossible for them to carry on and meet the financial obligations placed on them by money-lenders of some kind or another.

The tobacco industry in Australia has had a chequered history. Without knowing a great deal about it, I have endeavoured to furnish myself with information to enable me· to offer a balanced and objective opinion on the claims made by various people. I have spoken to tobacco-growers and have visited them, particularly in the company of the hon. membe-r for Tablelands, Mr. Wallis-Smith who knows a great deal more about this industry than I. I have had a number of meetings with growers of some stature in the industry. I have attended mee-tings in the Texas district. Recently the A.L.P. held a seminar for which Mr. Agostinelli, who is a fairly authoritative spokesman for the tobacco industry in Queensland, prepared a paper for considera­tion by those prese-nt. So we have been conscious of our obligations as people desirous of representing adequately all sections of the rural community by trying to make ourselves au fait with the problems confronting the tobacco-g.rowe-r.

We set out as a Government previously to provide water :facilities for the growing of tobacco. There were some initial mistakes. It was found that the quality of the water, when applied to particular soils, produced tobacco that was not an acceptable type required by manufacturers. But we did spend many millions of pounds, in both the south-western and the far northern parts of Queensland, because we considered that it should be the aim of any Government in Australia to have a balanced economy. To me there is no sound reason why, if we can grow articles for Australian consumption, we should waste precious foreign exchange in importing them. The Minister pointed out that in 1952 the content of Australian

tobacco was 3_ per cent. We have seen the content nse progressively, with one downward fluctuation, until it will shortly reach 50 per cent.

In fairness, I must say that I arranged to see one of the di·rectors of Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust.) Ltd. because the name of that company has been bandied around the Chamber in recent times and because of the charges levelled against it and other organisations. The director flew from the South especially to see me. He indicated that he and his company had nothing to hide or to be ashamed of.

Mr. Adair: They all say that.

Mr. DUGGAN: I am saying what he said. He told me that if I had any queries he would be happy, to the best of his ability, to answer them. I asked him, amongst other things, the reason for the reluctance of Australian manufacturers to use a greater percentage of Australian leaf. He informed me that cigarettes were no different from other commodities sold on a mass basis to the public-they had to have an acceptability. When Rothmans were launched as a public company in Australia many years ago, shareholders took up shares at par and they dropped to a very low level indeed. I think £1 shares went as low as 9s. or 10s., the reason being that the company was marketing initially a grade of cigarette that was not acceptable to the Australian smoking public. From memory, I think Martins was one of the brands.

The company changed to the now famous brands of Rothmans and Peter Stuyvesant, and became spectacularly successful. The director pointed out that, unlike some tobacco manufacturers, his company concentrates solely on cigarettes. Cigars are not manu­factured in Australia now. At one time cigar-tobacco leaf was grown at Manilla in New South Wales, but that activity has now ceased. Some of the other companies market pipe tobacco.

The figures given by the director of Rothmans of purchases by various companies at the Brisbane sales till 3 September, 1965, were-

Rothmans of Pall Mall W. D. & H. 0. Wills (Aust) Ltd.

Per cent. 33·6 38·2

Godfrey Phillips International Pty. Ltd. 14·5

Phi lip Morris (Australia) Ltd. 13 · 6 The prices paid for those percentages were­

Pence per lb.

Rothmans of Pall Mall W. D. & H. 0. Wills (Aust) Ltd. Godfrey Phillips International

Pty. Ltd. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd ...

Others, who purchased only · 1 of the total-a quite infinitesimal paid 36d. per lb.

125·1 116·1

119·5 107·6

per cent. amount-

Tobacco Industry (2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2053

The comparable figures for the Mareeba sales were-

Pence Per cent. per lb.

Rothmans of Pall Mall 34·7 I 31·4 W. D. & H. 0. Wills

(Aust) Ltd. 39·6 126·2 Godfrey Phillips Inter-

national Pty. Ltd. 15·3 131· 0 Philip Morris

(Australia) Ltd. 10·3 130· 8 Those figures, which they say are subject to examination by interested parties, show Rothmans as paying the highest prices paid for tobacco up till 3 September, 1965, at both the Brisbane and Mareeba sales.

The fact remains, however, that hundreds of tobacco-growers are still dissatisfied. Many have left the industry in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. It seems to me that somewhere between the extreme criticisms generated by both manu­facturers and growers there should be some point of reconciliation. If this problem was approached by men of experience with reputations for fair-mindedness, perhaps some policy could be laid down that contained elements of fairness to both sections of the industry.

I have said before-and I say again­that if it is true that up to £1,000 an acre is being paid for tobacco land, particularly in Victoria, that does not seem to be a sound basis on which to establish an industry of this type.

At this point I wish to sound a note of warning about Australia's primary industries. Too many people who are engaged in rural industries think that if they can get a price for their product based on costs of produc­tion, it does not matter what they pay for land, and it does not. If it is possible to get pineapple farms for £50 an acre and the grower is guaranteed a reasonable return for his investment and his labour, and he then finds that, because costs are going up, the land increases in value to £60 an acre, and then the price of the pineapples doubles and it goes up to £90 an acre, and so on, the point must obviously be reached where the whole position becomes grossly uneconomic.

Although I am in favour of making this country as independent as possible of the importation of foreign foodstuffs-it seems ludicrous to say that when Australia is an exporting country-it is a fact that the best­quality butter goes overseas and is sold at a lower price than butter is sold to Australian consumers, that the best-quality eggs are exported and sold at lower prices than eggs are sold in Australia, and that cheese, dried fruits and many other primary products are sold overseas at lower prices than they are sold here. The commodities that are exported are, generally speaking, of a higher quality than those available to the Australian con­sumers, and that position will not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The time must come when basic industries will have to make them­selves efficient. If they make a genuine

attempt to do so and if the people engaged in them are working reasonably hard, there is a moral obligation on Governments to see that a political climate and statutory require­ments are provided that will enable people to grow certain commodities economically and profitably.

However, I do not think that the question of quality should be lost sight of, and I am slightly worried as to whether the proposed legislation will impose a penalty on a person who progressively has grown high-quality tobacco. Hon. members know that the tobacco plant is affected by variable climatic conditions and is very vulnerable to disease; they know, too, that the corrective control measures that are applied when these diseases appear sometimes affect the quality of the tobacco. The unfortunate tobacco farmer has to contend against all these things. Unques­tionably the stabilisation scheme is a com­promise between what the manufacturers wanted and what the growers wanted, but I hope that at least a base will have been prepared upon which the industry can be built into an efficiently conducted industry producing a quality of leaf that is acceptable to the Australian consumer.

As I said earlier, it is very difficult to get an impartial opinion, because most people are biased one way or the other. The manu­facturer is biased towards the manufacturing side of the industry; the grower is biased towards the growing side of the industry. I think the Minister said that in America about 800,000,000 lb. of tobacco is stored and that one-fifth of it dates back to 1957. That is eight years of storage for maturation, and it is virtually certain that some of it will have to be dumped. Of course, in America there is a price support scheme, whereas the Aus­tralian scheme provides merely for a quota based on 125d. a lb. and no price support. I understand that in Kentucky the conditions are better for tobacco-growing than they are anywhere else in the world because it is pos­sible to say with a degree of certainty that on 18 October, 1965, say, seven points of rain will fall in the tobacco-growing areas. In addition, the humidity and other growing conditions are fairly constant and do not vary nearly as much as they do in other areas. If the charge is true that the Australian industry has to blend Australian leaf with imported leaf, I point out in fairness that American tobacco leaf is also blended with leaf imported from Turkey, Greece, Africa, and other places.

This blending process is, I suppose, just like the whisky process. There are very few straight whiskies sold on the Australian market. They are the result of careful blend­ing to a palatability acceptable to those who drink Scotch whisky. They are nothing but a complete waste of time so far as I am con­cerned, not only for temperate reasons. So far as I am concerned it is poison-it has a poisonous sort of taste to me-but to those who like Scotch whisky there is a blend of 20 or 30 types of whisky under one inter­nationally known brand name. So also do the labels on many of our expensive tobaccos,

2054 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

more especially expensive imported pipe tobaccos. They all give an indication of the degree of blending that takes place.

Obviously, something must be done in this regard and I hope that this Bill will pro­vide the means of doing the things that are so necessary. One of the things that worries me a little in these things is exemplified in a volume that I have here. I am glad I hap­pened to read this book, which is by Brian Fitzpatrick. I commend it to everybody. It is called "Highest Bidder" and deals with overseas investment. I thought there was something about it in "The Australian" but neither I nor Mr. Downward, my secretary, could find it. However, I found it in this reference which gives the companies listed in Australia. So far as tobacco is concerned, in November 1963 the British Tobacco Com­pany was approximately 35 per cent. foreign owned; Godfrey Phillips was 100 per cent. foreign controlled and owned; Philip Morris, domiciled in the United States of America, was 65 per cent. foreign owned; and Roth­mans of Pall Mall was 50 per cent. foreign owned. I do not think there should be that degree of foreign ownership in companies of this kind. We should endeavour to see that our manufacturing industries have a greater Australian equity.

Of course, it is argued by some people­growers particularly-that the percentage of Australian tobacco in cigarettes should be increased. I mention that because of the interest of South Africa, Rhodesia, and other tobacco-growing countries in the world who want an outlet for their tobacco and insist on blending. Tobacco manufacturers I have spoken to say that if the Australian tobacco content was changed tomorrow from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. there would be an immediate decline in sales. I pointed out to them-I think, the hon. member for Table­lands will agree-that if anyone goes to France he will get a French cigarette which is quite unacceptable to him but quite accept­able to a Frenchman.

In Japan I bought the most expensive Japanese cigarette. In typical Japanese cus­tom it was called "Peace". It was a scented type of cigarette completely unacceptable to me, yet millions upon millions of them are sold in Japan. The expensive American oigarettes-Camels, Lucky Strikes and Ches­terfield-s-assumed some measure of popu­larity here during the war years because of the difficulty of getting Australian cigarettes and because of the ease with which American service personnel, of whom there were some hundreds of thousands in Queensland, could get them, and the cheap price at which they were available at their canteens. They became a popular cigarette because Australians became accustomed to the heavier American cigarette with its additives.

Australian cigarettes do not have the same additives as American cigarettes, but the point is that the palate eventually is able to accept changes in cigarettes. If I gave an American

an Australian cigarette, he would discard it; if I gave an Australian a Turkish cigarette, or a Japanese, or a French cigarette, he would discard it, but they are acceptable in their respective countries. It was pointed out to me that if we had a progressive 5 per cent. additional Australian content in the total per­centage every year the people would ulti­mately be quite prepared to accept 100 per cent. Australian leaf. I am only putting for­ward what the tobacco manufacturers regard as acceptable from the smoker's point of view.

Mr. Ramsden: That would be right. I used to smoke Old Chum cigarettes until they started to put tobacco in them.

Mr. DUGGAN: I am trying to be quite objective in this matter.

The point that is worrying me particularly is that, unquestionably, decent people have been the victims of unfortunate sharp practices in the industry. Some share farmers have been exploited. Undoubtedly, there are some share farmers who do not rotate their crops regularly. I think the ideal would be about 20 per cent. rotation a year, but some of them are at 60 per cent. a year. Obviously that is not economic or desirable because the land becomes com­pletely unacceptable if one breaks and destroys the acknowledged and sound practices in growing tobacco.

There has been an increased desire on the part of tobacco-growers to avail them­selves of research facilities and the assistance of tobacco inspectors. One of the best things done by the Government-not only this Government, but our Government; in fact I think Labour started it-was to go along to the tobacco farmer and, instead of saying, "You do this", or "You do that," to say, "You give me a small section of your tobacco farm and I will plant an area and fertilise it, and you can have the crop when I am finished." When it is done side by side with their own practices and they can see what is being done by scientific methods in growing tobacco-the visual demonstration is there for them to see-obviously they become more conducive to accepting the advice of the officers of the department. That is the case if they are given an earful of information plus an eyeful, instead of just an earful.

The first thing we have to do is get the industry on a proper basis. Once we have established a basis of efficient operation, the Commonwealth and State Governments must remain loyal and faithful to the tobacco-growers of this country and not sell them down the drain. That is important. We must not become victims of pressures exercised by people who are more concerned about making a profit and remitting it out­side the country than in strengthening the internal economy of this country.

If it were not for the inflow of foreign capital into this country we would be bankrupt in the next few years because our import charges are tending to exceed our

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2055

export earnings. Unless we take stock of omselves we will still be bank­rupt if we do not liven ourselves up and take an interest in this eroding away of our national assets by the unnecessary infusion of foreign capital. A certain amount of it is desirable; I acknowledge that without any equivocation at all. I do not think our great mining ventures could be sustained sufficiently by funds from Australian share­holders because they are not prepared to invest in companies where it may be some years before returns will be received.

I should like to continue my remarks at the second-reading stage, because there are many important points which I feel should be outlined in the interests of the tobacco­growing industry.

(Time expired.)

Mr. WHARTON (Burnett) (8.49 p.m.): am glad to be associated with this Bill. think that the very title of it gives hon.

members an incentive to speak on the stabilisation scheme.

This country needs security and stability, and anything that will bring stability to Australia will certainly have our support. The Leader of the Opposition said this Government was tardy in making some move to bring this about.

Mr. Davies: Hear, hear!

Mr. WHARTON: He is absolutely wrong, and the hon. member for Maryborough knows he is wrong. The Government may have been a little slow because of the difficulties enumerated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Davies: You have been forced to do it by public opinion.

Mr. WHARTON: I will not be guided by the hon. member's opinion.

This Government has always been loyal to the tobacco-gwwers. It has tried for a number of years to establish a stabilisation scheme, but hon. members on both sides of the Chamber know that a number of difficulties have delayed its establishment. There have been differences of opinion between the four tobacco manufacturers on the one hand and the growers on the other. It is difficult enough to get growers together in Queensland, but it is much more difficult to arrange a stabilisation scheme for growers in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queens­land. I am glad that the respective Ministers for Primary Industries have found a means by which the scheme may be implemented. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition attended a seminar on tobacco­growing.

An Opposition Member: When was this?

Mr. WHARTON: The hon. gentleman just told us that, at a seminar, a paper was read by Mr. Agostinelli, a prominent authority on tobacco. No-one is more interested in

tobacco-growers than this Government. We have been alongside them, because we under­stand their problems.

Mr. DuggJllll: Do you know that the Labour Party established every commodity board in Queensland?

Mr. WHARTON: That is all very well, but that was a long time ago.

An Oppositwn Member: You abolished them.

Mr. WHARTON: We did not abolish them.

Mr. Wallis-Smith: Do you admit that water is the lifeline of the tobacco industry?

Mr. WHARTON: It is part of it.

Mr. Wallis-Smith: Do you admit it is the lifeline?

Mr. WHARTON: No, I will not admit that. Tobacco needs the right soil, fertiliser, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the hon. members for Burnett and Tablelands that rema-rks must be addressed to the Chair. The hon. member for Tablelands will be given an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. WHARTON: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Hooper.

I wish to say something about the scheme and its effect on the industry, for the industry is of vital importance to my elec­torate. The Miriam Vale and Bundaberg districts are extensive tobacco-growing areas. Very good tobacco is grown there. It might do some hon. members opposite good to know that Miriam Vale topped the sales for South-east Queensland in the recent sales, and the Bundaberg district was not far behind.

Mr. Houston: How much was received?

Mr. WHARTON: From Miriam Vale tobacco, 138·2775d. a lb.

The growers at Miriam Vale and Bunda­berg and district have the know-how in the growing of tobacco. They are happy with the introduction of this scheme and, as a Government, we are happy to introduce this legislation, which is comple­mentary to the Federal Government's legis­lation, to look after the tobacco-growers.

No doubt there have been many problems in the industry. The industry at Miriam Vale is conducted basically by dry farming methods and I remind the hon. member for Tablelands that this area grows very good dry-farm tobacco. At the recent R.N.A. Brisbane Exhibition and the one before, this area, with an entry from A. Craig, won a prize, and on numerous occasions the Bundaberg district has won prizes for tobacco produced under irrigation. At Calavos, in the Bundaberg dis,trict, tobacco grown by Charlie HaLpin won a State-wide R.N.A. competition.

2056 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

I thank the Minister for including in the Bill a provision allowing the Miriam Vale farmers in particular to have a quota, even though they may not own the land on which they are growing tobacco. They were very con­cerned at the thought that they would have to cease tobacco-growing because they did now own the land. They were growing on the share-farming basis and under lease. It is pleasing to know that their position is covered by the Bill.

The Bundaberg district has more intensified tobacco-growing. The community generally is of Italian descent. They are wonderful and efficient farmers, and good citizens. They set to and cleared the land at a cost of approximately £80 an acre, and built curing barns and houses. They are doing a worth­while job in developing the area. Their work is a credit to them. They have spent enormous sums of money and have become good citizens. Many of them are naturalised. We appreciate what they are doing in that district.

Mr. O'Donneli: They are playing an important part in the tobacco industry.

Mr. WHARTON: Yes, they are. This is an industry that calls for a high

degree of efficiency. Not everyone has the extensive knowledge required. This is an industry of high costs. It is beset with many diseases and insect pests, so a great deal of science has to be applied. I commend the efficiency of our tobacco-growers. They work long hours and work well. They do not work by the clock; they work by the sun. They set to and do what has to be done. They are the kind of men I spoke about the other day. They want to ,progress, and want to work, and I hope that this scheme will give them the incentive to produce good tobacco that people, such as the hon. member for Merthyr, like to smoke. The introduction of any quota system is a kind of restriction. It is not really a restriction; but it is essential that what is produced must be marketed at a reasonable price.

Mr. Bennett: There are mill peaks in the sugar industry.

Mr. WHARTON: I am glad the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane knows something about something. There are people who can produce a large quantity of tobacco and earn a fair amount of money, so with the intro­duction of quotas somebody will be hurt. The growers in my area are concerned. There are some large growers there who want to produce their existing tonnages which, by the way, they were able to sell. They have spent large amounts of capital in establishing themselves, buying machinery and equipment, irrigating, and erecting up to six curing barns.

Mr. Houston: What would their quota be?

Mr. WHARTON: The minimum is 5 tons, or 10,000 lb. Some of them would be on three or four times that quantity.

Mr. Houston: How many would they employ?

Mr. WHARTON: It is only seasonal work. They would not employ many on ploughing. Picking and curing on a tobacco farm may give employment to 20 or 30 people, many of them women, and this is a valuable con­tribution to the relief of unemployment. This happens in my electorate. I think all will appreciate that the tobacco industry, although it is seasonal, provides work for those who depend on seasonal employment.

I make the point that these growers have invested a lot of capital in the industry, and they feel that in some way they have been penalised. They appreciate that if there is to be a quota system, the quotas must be adhered to and that for the time being they will have quotas that are low in comparison with those granted to others. I regret that.

Mr. Bennett: You are having ''two bob" each way.

Mr. WHARTON: No; I am looking after the fellows who are the salt of the earth, and for whom something should be done. The hon. member for South Brisbane does not invest any capital in his job.

Mr. Houston: What would be the cost of production per lb. in your area?

Mr. WHARTON: That is a difficult question. I could not answer it offhand.

Mr. Houston: I am asking you, as a practical man.

Mr. WHARTON: If the average is 125d., in some cases costs would be above that and in some cases below it. There is not a great deal of profit in tobacco-growing. I cannot give a figure, because it varies so greatly.

Mr. Bromley: It costs about 90d. in your area.

Mr. WHARTON: How would you know?

A pleasing feature of the Bill is that even though Queensland has a quota of 14,000,000 lb. to be shared among the growers, when the surplus at present on hand has been dis­posed of the quota will increase. I should say that a grower producing 5 tons or 10,000 lb. will receive about £5,000, which, of course, is not all profit. I hope that those who remain in the industry will receive worth-while incomes.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that 7 points of rain fell in Kentucky on 18th October each year. If 7 points of rain fell in my area every day in October it would not even wet the surface.

I should like to say that the industry depends not only on those who own the land. Many tobacco-growers are share-farmers and lessees, and I really do not think they are badly done by. I know of many share­farmers who get 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the crop, whilst the owner gets 10 per cent. to 2 0 per cent.

Mr. Davies: Where is that?

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2057

Mr. WHARTON: Bundaberg and district. It has to be appreciated that the share­farmers are not victimised. Would they stay on the farms if they were?

I am glad that the Minister has included in the Bill the extra ingredient, if I may so describe it, to assist those who want to grow tobacco. Those who are able to do so should be encouraged. One of the things that has made the introduction of a stabilisation scheme necessary is over­production combined with disorderly market­ing. Some of the growers in my area have almost walked off their farms because they have not sold one bale of tobacco leaf in a year. I ask hon. members to imagine how a farmer feels when he has worked for 12 months, grown his crop, fertilised it, and harvested it, and then not sold one bale of it.

Mr. Davies interjected.

Mr. WHARTON: The hon. member for Maryborough obviously has not listened to what I have been saying. I said there were many good, efficient farmers; I said also that, in spite of this, there was a need for the stabilisation scheme.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee the plight of men who have not sold even one bale of their leaf. If a drought-relief scheme is implemented for dairy farmers and graziers, why is not a similar scheme implemented for tobacco­growers? Is it any worse to be hit by drought, fire or flood than it is to be hit by no sale? If problems arise in other fields of primary production, I suggest it is only logical to assume that problems will also arise in the tobacco industry. When relief schemes are being implemented, I ask the Minister to include the tobacco-growers in them.

I visited the Southern Queensland Co­operative Tobacco Marketing Association's auction floor and I commend the action that they have taken. They are selling on 2t per cent. commission, and I should say that very few organisations do that. I noted particularly the erratic prices received at the sales, and I believe this scheme will overcome that problem. One sees buyers flitting round, buying a bale here, having a bale reappraised there, then buying it, or deciding not to buy another bale. It is very difficult to stabilise the income of farmers under those conditions.

Mr. Bromley: Are you attacking the manu­facturers?

Mr. WHARTON: I am not attacking any­body; the tobacco manufacturers are part of the scheme. It is no good producing some­thing if it cannot be sold, and the selling of bales of tobacco is just as important as the selling of wool, wheat, or any other primary product. I am not attacking the manufacturers. Some of their methods may not have been above board, but this scheme will bring them into line and make them partners with the growers.

I commend the Bill to the Committee because I believe it will bring a measure of stability to the tobacco industry, particularly in my electorate. It will make a welcome contribution to growers in my area who hope to enjoy a stable return and income. Around Bundaberg they enjoy the benefit of good soil, a good climate and a good business community, and I think the tobacco industry will make a worth-while contribution to the area I represent in the Burnett.

Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo) (9.10 p.m.): I listened--

Me. Bennett: Now you will hear something about tobacco.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane is being extremely unparliamentary, particularly when one of his colleagues has just taken the call. I ask him to refrain from interjecting, in which he has been persistent throughout the evening.

Mr. Bennett: A little powe•r is a dangerous thing.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane is reflecting on the Chair. I ask him to withdraw the remark he just passed.

Mr. Bennett: Oh, very well.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the hon. member for an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr. Bennett: Yes. I withdraw the remark in the same manner as the hon. member for Townsville South withdraws his.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the hon. member for South Brisbane under the pro­visions of Standing Order 123A.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I listened with great interest to the Minister's introduction of the Bill. He gave us perhaps one of the most important messages awaited throughout this year because of the controversial situation in the Australian tobacco industry. As my Leader said, it has eventually reached the stage where growers have revolted at sales.

I realise that a stabilisation scheme is essential. I realise, too, that in the recent deliberations in the House of Representatives there was unanimity between both sides of the House on the question, except for one major point and two minor ones with which I shall deal later. However, I stress that my Leader accused the Government-no doubt he referred also to the Commonwealth Government-of being dilatory in the intro­duction of a stabilisation plan. I agree that there has been dilatoriness, and I shall explain why.

In 1961, when the Australian production reached 30,000,000 lb., there was a crisis in the tobacco industry in Australia. So bad was that crisis that the Commonwealth Government had to come to the aid of some growers, to the extent of at least £175,000, to get them out of their troubles. Immedi­ately that happened there was a cry for a stabilisation plan. But in 1962 and 1963

2058 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

there were two good years and the idea of stabilisation was forgotten by the growers and the manufacturers and also-and this is more important-by the State and Federal Governments.

That is where I think the Governments were dilatory. When a bumper crop for 1964 was imminent-34,000,000 lb.-there immediately arose the fear, "What are we going to do with all this?" When that fear became a reality action was taken, and this month in the Federal sphere, and now in our State sphere, we have action. There are other actions to follow in New South Wales and Victoria. That is the criticism I put up of both the State and the Commonwealth Governments.

There is a strong tendency to follow this line too much. With other rural industries, the tobacco industry was affected by the drought. Given a run of two good seasons, all thought about water conservation, drought prevention, and so on, will be forgotten until the next crisis is upon us. That is why I criticise the Government. When times are good it does not take the initiative. We have had so many lessons in the past; far too many indeed.

I said I would refer to matters that happened in the Fedeml sphere which I consider can be the cause of discontent amongst the gwwers with this stabilisation plan. The Federal legislation provided for the Australian Tobacco Board. In Australia there are four ~rominent manufacturers, and on that board ther'e are to be four representa­tives of the manufacturers and four repre­sentatives of the growers. There we have the seed of discontent.

On the Australian Wheat Board there are eight grower representatives and only one miller representative. When thoughtful men on the land connected with the tobacco industry consider this question of equal representation with the manufacturers, they will have a great deal to ponder over. We know that right down through the history of the industry there has been constant strife between growers and manufacturers.

Mr. Rae: Who are the four manu­facturers?

Mr. O'DONNELL: British Tobacco Company, Rothmans, Godfrey Phillips, and Philip Morris.

Mr. Rae: They are the four main ones?

Mr. O'DONNELL: They are the four of any consequence that I know o£.

To my mind, that is one seed of dis­content. Another is the quota of 26,000,000 lb. Remember that in 1964 we had 34,000,000 lb. I appreciate what the Mjnister has said about his representations for 28,000,000 lb. There could be strong feeling that the quota of 26,000,000 lb. is too small. I should like to inform the Committee that the four manu­facturers did not want 28,000,000 lb.; nor did they want 26,000,000 lb. They wanted 22,000,000 1b. That is a fine example of their

attitude towards the industry! When I express tha;t opinion, I point out that in last year's transactions they imported 5,000,000 lb. of tobacco leaf from South Africa. South Africa tobacco leaf is regarded as being of inferior quality.

The third reason for discontent is in the average minimum price of 125d. It was said in the Federal House-and these are Australian figures-that for the last three years the average prices per pound were 140d., 134·8d., and 123·1d. I took those figures from a speech in the Federal House but I was not content with them. I went to the Library and obtained a report of the Director of Marketing for the year ended 30 June, 1964, which contains very interesting figures concerning Queensland production. As hon. members know, we have the North Queensland and South Queensland sections. I will not go through the full list of figures but I will give the totals from 1954-55 to the latest figures given, for 1963-64. These are the averages per pound-

Year 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 J 958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64

Average price d.

160·84 136·26 125·57 126·37 133 ·93 142·83 121· 38 143 ·11 137·27 127·03

Hon. members will note that 1960-61 was the year of the crisis which I mentioned, the one instance when the price dropped below 125d. Those figures are on page 75 of the report of the Director of Marketing for 30 June, 1964.

In that price of 125d. is to be found the third seed of discontent. A most important industry is involved and I intend to quote some figures to prove how productive it is for the manufacturer. I do not intend to name the company involved, but in nine years it made a profit of £14,810,000.

Mr. Rae: In nine years?

Mr. O'DONNELL: Yes. It has placed £4,000,000 into reserves and it holds tobacco stocks exceeding £15,000,000 in value.

Mr. Lickiss: What is the paid-up capital of the company.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I do not want to reveal its name, although I could do so.

Mr. Lickiss: What is the paid-up capital?

Mr. O'DONNELL: I will not say. I am not here to attack the company. I appreciate that tobacco companies are doing a good job, that they are e·fficient and that they employ Australian workers. They are doing some good, even though a large measure of overseas capital may be involved.

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER[ Stabilisation Bill 2059

I do not want to say how much capital is invested, or anything like that, but I want to impress upon hon. members the profits made in this industry. This company had losing years as well, but they are taken into consideration. There are four large tobacco manufacturing companies in Australia, and over the years they have constantly quarrelled with the growers over the percentage of Australian leaf to be included in the blend.

Rothmans has been referred to tonight. When that company first went into business it was a comparative failure because the type of cigarette it produced was unacceptable to the Australian public. That cannot be said today. The company made its name out of the "Rothmans" brand but now it is increasing its sales, year after year, with the sale of Peter Stuyvesants, which in my opinion are a better cigarette than Rothmans. We do not hear any of these companies saying, "We can do something for the Australian grower if we bring out a special 1 00 per cent. Australian cigarette, not in great quantity, but with the hope of educating the Australian public."

My Leader quoted how, on visits to over­seas countries, Australians experience diffi­culty smoking foreign cigarettes. Years ago I visited a French warship. I was handed a thick cigarette which was poorly rolled in very plain paper. It was acrid to smoke. But that was the issue to the French Navy. A few years ago my wife visited Clermont, where she saw an unusual packet of cigarettes in the local cafe. She knows I am a heavy smoker, and she brought that packet of cigarettes home and gave it to me. They were Greek cigarettes and I could not smoke them. But evidently they are smokable in Greece.

I say emphatically that these companies could manufacture a small quota of a special brand of cigarette and put it on the market as a 100 per cent. Australian-leaf cigarette.

Mr. Cbinchen: What if they do not sell?

Mr. O'DONNELL: I suggested a small quota, and the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt comes in with an inane interjection. I sug­gest that out of its profits of nearly £15,000,000 with £4,000,000 reserves, and £15,000,000 in tobacco stocks, the com­pany to which I referred could make a small gesture so that the Australian taste could be tested. There has been an improvement in the leaf, which was referred to by the Minister, and a large amount of money is being spent on research. I shall quote those figures shortly. I should like to see a part education of the Australian smoker in using his own national tobacco.

Mr. Ramsden: How does this tie up with the anti-smoking campaign?

Mr. O'DONNELL: I am concerned with the fact that my time will run out, so I have no time for interjections like that.

Under the recent Federal legislation there has been an alteration in the tobacco charge on the industry because of this stabilisation plan. The grower paid td. a lb. and the manufacturer paid 1d. That money went into a trust fund for research and associated act1v1t1es. Under the Federal stabilisation legislation there was an alteration in those charges, <IJart of which up to £30,000 will go to the Australian Tobacco Board. The td. is now three-fifths of a penny, and, following the doubling principle, the manufacturer pays 1·2d., or as we can see, the humble cent.

I am interested in what has been done in the field of research. I find that the Tobacco Research Fund has distributed £1,700,000. The report of the Department of Primary Industries outlines the work being done by our officers. I have not sufficient time to read from the report. I want to refer to the charges on the industry in Queensland.

Again I go to the• report of the Director of Marketing. The figures shown are very interesting. Under the present system the tobacco-growe·r pays a research levy of td. a lb., which I mentioned before. That is to be increased. He pays a board levy of ;td. a lb. which goes to administration. I should like to detail these extra charges to indicate the costs that growers have to meet. They are: insurance, £1 2s. 6d. per cent.; agent's charges-commission, 2t per cent.; warehousing and handling, td. a lb.; inward freight and cartage where applicable.

Let me now deal with the Tobacco Industry Trust Fund levies. From 1956 to 1963 the total of levies paid by Queensland growers has steadily mounted. The figures are-

1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963

£ 7,976

11,048 14,833 17,012 23,909 34,086 28,714 35,605

It will thus be seen that the grower is con­tributing to the cost of the vital research which will uplift the quality of Australia's leaf. As my Leader said, we sincerely hope that eventually a national cigarette will be pmduced.

There is no need for me to go through the levies of the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board. All I need say is that in 1948-49 levies collected amounted to £2,359, and 'they have progressiv,ely increased to £53,782 in 1963. I could continue to illus­trate the immense costs that have to be borne in various aspects of the industry. I feel that this stabilisation plan will have to be watched very carefully. What will be done if another major tobacco manufac­turer comes to Australia? Will it be given representation on the Australian Tobacco Board? If it is, the manufacturers' rep­resentation will exceed that of the growers. These are points that must be considered.

2060 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

Many growers have stated that an average minimum of 132d. a lb. would have been a more accurate figure than 125d. It will be necessary to look very closely at the national quota of 26,000,000 lb., because I have here some rather interesting figures. I should like to ask the Minister, if it is possible for him to tell me, why since 1958-59 Western Australia has progressively gone out of tobacco production.

Mr. Nicklin: They could not grow the quality of leaf required.

Mr. O'DONNELL: I thank the Premier for his interjection. It is claimed that South African tobacco is very inferior, yet it is being imported to Australia at the rate of 5,000,000 Lb. a year. From Rhodesia (it must not be forgotten that there is trouble there now) 7,500,000 lb. is imported, and 16,000,000 lb. from the United States, making a total quantity imported of 28,251,297 lb. That is a very large quantity. In fact, Australia is importing 2,000,000 lb. more than is being accepted as a national quota for Australian growers. When pro­duction decreases in a State such as Western Australia, surely someone can take action to rectify the situation.

Mr. Nicklin: Most Western Australian soils are very saline, and salinity is fatal to tobacco.

Mr. O'DONNELL: It is unfortunate for them.

Mr. Row: It is unfortunate for them, but it is rather fortunate for us.

Mr. O'DONNELL: Perhaps it is fortunate for us.

(Time expired.)

Mr. McKECHNIE (Carnarvon) (9.36 p.m.): join with the hon. member for Barcoo in

complimenting the Minister for introducing this legislation, but I disagree with his state­ment that the Minister had been dilatory.

!VIr. O'Donnell: I did not say the Minister; I said the Government.

Mr. McKECHNIE: The Minister has been implementing the a:>lan as far as possible while awaiting this legislation, which primarily has been requested by the growers. He set up an interim quota committee so that as much machinery as possible would be ready when the plan was proceeded with.

The hon. member for Barcoo mentioned that Australia is importing 28,500,000 lb. of tobacco from Rhodesia and America. He forgot South Africa.

Mr. O'Donnell: I mentioned South Africa -5,000,000 lb.

Mr. McKECHNIE: The hon. member said that was not fair when the Australian quota is only 26,000,000 lb. I agree that it is only 26,000,000 lb.; but at the end of the season before last there was a carry­over of about 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 lb.

that the manufacturers bought in, and I pay a tribute to them for doing that. That 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 lb. of tobacco is being absorbed over four years. Con­sequently, if we take it as 12,000,000 lb. as a round figure and divide it by four, it means that 3,000,000 lb. per annum is being added to the 26,000,000 lb., which gives an Australian content of 29,000,000 lb. against 28,500,000 lb. of imported tobacco.

Mr. Sherrington: Not enough.

Mr. McKECHNIE: No, but it will be improved in time. When the surplus is absorbed at the end of the four-year period -one has gone; there are three to go­that will be the time to negotiate for an increased Australian content.

As I have said in this Chamber before, I believe that the Australian content could be increased by 3 to 5 per cent. each year after this settling-down period. The smoking of tobacco is an acquired habit, and, as several speakers including the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, palates can adjust to the various varieties. If 5 per cent. per annum were added to the Australian content, I cannot see why in time there should not be a lOO-peT cent. Australian content. Smokers would become accustomed to it if it was increased steadily.

Mr. Adair: It might be better than imported tobacco.

Mr. McKECHNIE: As the hon. member for Cook says, it might be better. Australian leaf is quite good. In fact, a challenge was issued to set imported Rhodesian leaf alongside Australian leaf for purposes of comparison, but it was not accepted. I am satisfied that Australian tobacco is better than Rhodesian, and I think it is better than American tobacco, too.

I shall give hon. members some figures showing prices of imports from other coun­tries. and it must be remembered that Australia is buying only their best tobacco. I believe that they may have more dump lines than Australia has.

I support the Bill because I know that growers desire stabilisation. The Bill is essentially the desire of the growers. It has been altered a little at the request of the manufacturers, but basically it is what the growers want. We would all like a bigger quota, admittedly.

The plan that has been produced is the result of the hard work of growers, their toil over the years, and their struggles. In some years good money has been made in tobacco. The year before last one grower sold every lb. he produced at 12s. 7d.; but there have been some disappointments as well. This Bill, we hope, trust and anticipate will bring about the desired effect. It is a wonderful effort when one remembers that it required co-operation between growers, manufacturers, the Commonweatlh Government, and three State Governments. When a group like that

Tobacco Industry (2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2061

agrees and comes up with a neat plan, it is certainly a wonderful example of co-opera­tion.

We faced many problems. We had an industry that was growing rapidly. Cheap leaf was available from other countries and, whether it was better or worse than our own, the temptation was naturally there for manu­facturers to use it and discourage local pro­duction. The growers encountered manu­facturer-resistance at that stage, and that attitude persisted until quite recently, but now that the manufacturers are co-operating in the implementation of the scheme, all that remains to be seen is how it is handled. Following the introduction of the Bill I am confident that it will be much better than in the past year, when most of the marketing was carried out by bluff.

With the increase in Australian content, many new growers were coming into the industry and we had soil and water problems. On the other hand, half the leaf that was used was being produced by the manufac­turers. When I say "produced by the manu­facturers", I mean half the leaf was imported by them.

The plan envisages 26,000,000 lb. for the whole of Australia, 14,000,000 to Queens­land. The Australian content rose from 41· 5 per cent. to 47 · 6 per cent. and it will be 50 per cent. in the next year-a fairly con­stant rate of improvement in Australian con­tent. The plan covers 140 commercial grades and the price ranges from a top of 196d. to a bottom of 46d. Under the plan the lowest eight grades have been removed, but that was done, I presume, before these figures were Issued, so the range at the moment is from 196d. to 46d. There is a 14,000,000 lb. carry­over which will be absorbed in the next three years, when we can have another look at the plan. I envisage that the Australian content will be increased at a steady rate until it reaches the ultimate result of I 00 per cent.

As the Minister has said, there is to be no restriction on the growing of tobacco. Any­body can gr?w. tobacco in any quantity; there are no restnctwns under the plan. The only requirement is that a permit must be obtained from the Department of Customs and Excise. Having got a permit, a grower can plant 1,000 acres if he wants to do so. He would not have a good chance of selling all of it, of course, except possibly the top grades u_nder the scheme. I think it would be pos­sible to sell a few of the top grades outside quota, but this would not be an economic proposition.

The average price paid for imported Rhodesian leaf in the year ended June 1964 ~as 56d. in Al_lstra1ian currency, a sub~tantiai nse of approximately 7d.

Mr. Adair: That is well under our cost of production?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Yes but it was well above their cost of produ~tion. As we all know, Rhodesia is a low-wage country and is thus able to produce cheaply. Rhodesia was one of the most-favoured nations for

imports. In the present circumstances I do not know whether that will still be so, as at the moment such import is banned. The duty on Rhodesian tobacco was 96d., giving a total import price of 152d. If a manufac­turer uses his full Australian content as speci­fied for a particular year, he is allowed a deduction from duty of 17d. If 17d. is deducted from 152d., it will be seen that Rhodesian tobacco can be landed in Aus­tralia at 135d., plus, of course, some freight charges. It has to be whole leaf, but it is cased and dried out, which mean it is 6 per cent. lighter than our leaf.

Mr. Duggan: What variation was there in quality in that Rhodesian tobacco?

Mr. McKECHNIE: We pay 56d., and the average Rhodesian price is about 8d. less.

Mr. Duggau: What is the quality of the tobacco we import from Rhodesia? Is it con­stant in quality?

Mr. McKECHNIE: It would vary, but to what extent I do not know.

Mr. Duggan: Is it a comparatively high quality?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Yes. We pay 8d. above the Rhodesian average.

By taking 135d. for dry leaf and adding weight of 6 per cent. to bring it back to the wet standard, it can be seen that it is landed in Australia at almost the price under our stabilisation scheme, that is, about 125d.

South African leaf was landed here this year at 69 · 4d.-a dramatic rise from 45 · 8d. the previous year. I am only speaking about imported leaf into Australia. I do not know the South African figures.

Turning to United States Virginia leaf, the average for the whole of the United States crop is 58· 5 cents. I realise I disagree violently with the figures of the Leader of the Opposition here. I do not know where he got those figures. From what I could find, the average for the whole of the United States crop was 58· 5 cents-in round figures 60d. in our currency. The leaf sold to Aus­tralia averaged 94 · 5d.

Mr. Duggan: I did not mention any price for American tobacco.

Mr. McKECHNIE: I thought you said 100.

Mr. Duggan: I will accept an apology.

Mr. McKECHNIE: I am setting out these figures because I know they are of interest to the growers in the industry. They have not been able to get them. The portion sold to Australia averaged 94· 5d. as against 60d. for the whole of the leaf sold to Australia and elsewhere, so it will be seen that we are definitely buying the cream of the tobacco.

Mr. Adair: Who is "we"?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Australia. We are buying the best of their tobacco. I am quite convinced that the Australian leaf is as good

2062 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bi 11

as the American leaf, because we are using nearly all we are producing and we have to buy the best of theirs. America is not a most-favoured nation. Import duty of 103d. per lb. is payable, which gives a landed cost of 197 · 5d. If the specified Australian con­tent is used, the duty is reduced by 17 d., which means that it can be landed in Aus­tralia for 180 · 5d.

In Queensland, 835 growers appear to have been allotted quotas. Of that number, 151 growers produce under 5 tons, and 380 produce under 71 tons. Of course, the former figure is included in the second, so there are quite a few small growers who have a basic quota of 5 tons.

Mr. Bromley: They will be better off in the long run.

Mr. McKECHNIE: Most growers pro­ducing small quantities, in my area par­ticularly, are engaged in other industries as well. They grow a few acres of tobacco on a favourable piece of ground where water is available. Although they are not able to make a living out of tobacco, together they can make a living out of tobacco and other activities. I do not say that the quota is correct; I think it should be higher, but for the moment they can carry on with it.

Under the scheme, as the Ministe•r explained, there is no interference with a person growing 5 tons or less. He gets the full quantity he has been growing. Pro­vision is made for 20 new farms that have not previously grown tobacco. This will allow some new irrigation farms in the industry. and they a.re to be given a quota of 7 tons.

A share-farmer on a year-to-year basis has no equity in a quota but a grower who leases land for a period of years holds the quota while he is the lessee of the land. Otherwise, the quota vests in the land and can be transferred, even from one State to another, with various permissions. This is important in my area because some of my growers produce tobacco in Queensland and New South Wales. It is not uncommon for people along the border to own country on both sides of the river. In one year it may suit them to grow tobacco in Queensland and next year it may suit them to grow it in New South Wales. They appreciate the opportunity to rotate the crop. I realise that this applies only to my area and I do not wish to dwell on it unduly.

I am generally confident that the stabilisa­tion scheme will give us the stability we have been looking for. I know that in my area some tobacco growers have gone out of the industry, but some will return as a result of the facilities which are under con­struction at the Coolmunda dam.

Mr. Sherrington: It is a few years late, isn't it?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Construction of the dam was commenced only 18 months ago but we expect that it will be in operation in about 18 months and will supply 61,000

acre-feet of water. Although the Department of Primary Industries is not issuing encourag­ing reports about the suitability of the water, I am sure it will induce quite a few growers in the area to produce tobacco.

lVIr. Sherrington: Will it help the salt problem there?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Yes, to some extent. The larger body of water will naturally assist in overcoming the chlorine content. I con­sider that the growers, with the assistance of Whetstone Tobacco Experimental Station, are to some extent overcoming the sodium chloride problem. With the extra knowledge, and better water-and plenty of it, which is the main thing~I hope we will solve quite a few of the problems in this area.

I appreciate the efforts made by the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Adermann, on behalf of the growers. Mr. Adermann has striven to make this scheme work. I have discussed all the details of the scheme with two of my con­stituents, the Chairman of the South Queens­land Tobacco Board, Mr. Augie Agostinel!i; and Mr. Athol McLauchlan, of Texas. They are in favour of the plan. I have also discussed it with other growers in my area. We are content that it is the basis on which the industry can go forward with confidence in the future.

Mr. WALUS-SMITH (Tablelands) (9.56 p.m.): I have been very interested in the various speeches on this Bill, particularly when the hon. member for Burnett said that the plan was a little slow in being intro­duced. I stress that point fmcibly. While this plan has been under consideration, quite a number of farmers in Queensland have been suffering. I received an assurance from the Minister for Primary Industries that with the implementation of this stabilisa­tion plan the growers would not suffer in the 1964-65 season. But they have suffered; some have left the district. There is often a certain amount of suffering before a good plan is introduced, but I think the Federal Government knew of this situation long befDre it acted. That is partly the reason it has been so slow.

I pay a tribute to Mr. Lapidge for his efforts to overcome the delay. I was present when he visited Mareeba and attended a meeting of farmers. I am sure that had it been necessary he would have interviewed every farmer in the district. He is the type of person we want, because he gets down to tin-tacks and discusses the problems with the farmers. The man on the spot is the man who gets the right ideas. We are indeed fortunate in having a man like Mr. Lapidge, otherwise the plan would have been slower still.

The result is a far cry from what we expect when an industry of this magnitude almost grinds to a halt and growers chase buyers away from one sale and the board stops another sale because of turmoil. This

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2063

industry should survive and go forward. But can it do that under the present system? Can it go forward in the next four years?

The hon. member for Carnarvon said there are to be 20 new farms. That is different from what the Minister for Local Government and Conservation told me when I asked him about the possibility of new farms on the irrigation channels. He told me it was not feasible to have new farms on the irrigation channels because there was no stabilisation scheme. In his answer on 7 Se·ptember the Minister said-

"It will not be feasible to open any new tobacco farms in the Mareeba­Dimbulah area until the State tobacco quota has been increased sufficiently to enable allocation of quotas to such new farms."

We have to wait until four years have slipped by. One year has already gone. There are to be no more new farms, and quotas in terms of pounds of tobacco are to be allotted. I am wondering whether this is a bad sign for the industry. We know that everything has to go either forward or backward; it cannot stand still. I think I can depend on the growers, and I am hoping and trusting thM they will go forward.

They have been asked before to sacrifice quantity for quality. I have seen farmers reject leaf that at present would be gladly accepted on any sale floor. In rejecting leaf that was not of acceptable quality to them, they have reduced their annual production. This has reacted against them, because quotas are based on production over five years. A very good farmer who takes the view, "I will put only the highest grade of leaf on the floor; I will sacrifice all that does not come up to my expectation so that I will be known as a grower of high-grade leaf," will receive a smaller quota. This seems hardly fair to the farmer who has tried to produce quality tobacco.

The Premier said by interjection that growers in Western Australia left the market because the leaf they produced was of poor quality. Some farmers who want to capitalise on every pound of leaf that comes off their farms will try to slip in poor-quality leaf. They hope, mostly in vain, that buyers will miss seeing it tucked away in a bale of tobacco to make up the weight. That is bad for the manufacturer, and also bad for the industry. A manufacturer who has been caught once will not be caught again.

I want to make it clear that I believe this plan can, and will, work. My opening remarks dealt mainly with delays. The bank manager goes to a farmer and says, "You cannot have any more money." He may say, "I cannot advance you money for fertiliser." The Minister himself said he realised there was great difficulty this year in obtaining finance, although he did not think that the quota system was to blame. I say that the banks are not willing to advance money to

farmers without knowing what their quotas will be. Here again it is the same old story-why the delay?

I started asking questions about quotas on 19 August. I have asked 12 of them, which I think should answer the hon. mem­ber for Burnett, who I do not think has asked one.

Mr. Wharton: I don't need to.

Mr. WALUS-SMITH: That is an indica­tion of my interest in the growers in my area. I am not merely going to say in my last speech before the election, "They are jolly good fellows; we want them." I try to help the growers in my area right from the beginning and all along the line. I know quite well that they appreciate this assistance. I may not be able to speak the exact language of a tobacco-grower and I may not know precisely the cost of producing a pound of tobacco, although I know it approximately. I do know, however, that when growers ask me to take them to the bank manager to see if they can get another advanf'e and the bank manager pulls out their returns and shows what they have and shakes his head, that is when I feel for them and resolve to keep plugging away in their interests.

Speedy action was taken to give relief in the drought. Of course, the drought covers a very large part of Queensland and the whole of Australia knows about it, but I am interested in an industry that often has a number of obstacles to overcome.

As I have said before in this Chamber the Australian Labour Party established the Tinaroo Falls Dam and showed how tobacco could be grown in Queensland. Of the 871 tobacco-farmers in Queensland, 581 are in the Mareeba-Dimbulah area, which gives some idea of the proportion of farmers who are dependent on that lifeline of the tobacco industry.

Mr. Wharton: Nobody is disputing that.

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: I point out to the hon. member for Burnett that 87 cane­farmers have tobacco quotas. The hon. member should not get it into his head that I do not think they are entitled to grow tobacco; but they are keeping quotas from 87 farmers in areas where cane will not grow, and, as the Minister has said, no new quotas will be allotted for four years.

Although many side issues have been raised in the debate, the crux of the matter is that this measure was not introduced as a matter of urgency. I remind the Minister that what is needed is not a living area but a living quota. It is no good having 200 acres of good tobacco soil if one has only a 4-ton quota. I point out, too, that in the past water charges have been based on the area of irrigable land. Now that the quota system has been introduced, I am sure the basis will be changed considerably. The Minister for Irrigation and Conservation probably has moved in this direction already.

Mr. Sberrington: He is slower than lhc Minister for Primary Industries.

2064 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

Mr. W ALLIS-SMITH: I admit that he is slow. Water runs slowly; I suppose he keeps pace with it.

I ask the Minister for Primary Industries to consider the price schedule. The more I see of it the more confused I become. Two or three grades in the schedule show a far greater variation than other grades, and I think the Minister knows the ones to which I am referring.

Mr. Row: The middle grades.

Mr. WALUS-SMITH: Yes, that is correct. There is a wide variation there. If there is no bid at the first sale and the leaf is passed in at the second sale, the arbiter marks it from one grade to the next grade. In the middle section the difference can be as much as 30d. a lb., and 30d. a lb. for a 200-lb. bale is a fairly large amount of money.

Mr. Sullivan: How much?

Mr. WALLIS-SMITH: The hon. member can work it out for himself.

I do not think that is ·quite fair, because the variation would be much less if the Nade was a little higher or a little lower. Right in the middle of the run of the grades the arbiter has a chance to deprive the grower of as much as 29d. or 30d. a pound.

It is understandable that the arbiter should say, "That has been up for auction; there must be something wrong with it." I am not saying the arbiter is making a wrong decision; he has no option. He marks it down in grade and in that way considerably reduces the income of the farmer. This is a grade that would be acceptable also to all manufacturers.

Whilst speaking about grade, I think it would be quite interesting to know the actual quality of the tobacco that is imported from South Africa, particularly by some of the manufacturers. I think they are quite happy with our tobacco. I am certain that they think our tobacco grades are worth buying all the year round. I am also satisfied that they spend as little as they can in importing low-grade leaf which goes to make the blend. As the hon. member for Carnarvon has men­tioned, they received a rebate on all imported leaf of 17d. a pound. I thought it was a little more than that but the Minister corrected him to 17d. a pound. This con­siderably reduces their outlay on imported leaf.

Having said that, I come now to the legis­lation passed by the Commonwealth Govern­ment. Whilst the hon. member for Carnar­von and other members on the Government side have been lauding Mr. Adermann for his efforts to make the stabilisation plan work, they did not mention that Mr. Adermann had power in his hands to put this industry where it should be by granting it a higher percentage. We were given excuses by Mr. Adermann why the percentage was reduced from 43 to 40 per cent. in 1962. Let him now find some excuse for raising it at least 3 per cent. or 5 per cent. per annum. An

excuse would not be difficult to find. We want this industry to expand, so let us keep the percentage rising. We cannot keep on marking time.

The Minister will probably tell us that we are marking time in order to overcome the carry-over at present held by manufac­turers. Let us try to overcome that problem other than by simply saying to the farmers, "You mark time where you are for four years; after that we will see if we can get a percentage rise." Let the Federal Minister come down with a worth-while plan and say, "From now on this industry is going to expand; we will get our value out of the wonderful irrigation scheme which is almost completed." It must be almost completed because workmen are not being replaced on it. It has slowed to a walk and will eventually stop. Why? The reason is, as we heard tonight, that there is not sufficient interest by the Federal Minister in keeping this industry alive.

Mr. Low: The Federal Minister is carry­ing out the wishes of the organisation of growers.

Mr. WALLIS-SMITH: That is wishful thinking. If he was carrying out the wishes of the organisation of growers he would have been doing something far quicker than he is.

During the introduction of the Bill the Minister mentioned several new ideas. I hope these will help safeguard the industry and make this plan work. I notice in some of the remarks he made that there were to be very high penalties for not accepting the regulations or conditions, or for producing non-quota leaf or selling non-quota leaf on the floor. To my mind no punishment could be harsh enough for people who endeavour to undermine the very foundations of the plan to stabilise this industry.

I was also interested to learn that a tribunal would hear appeals and to know the terms of reference under which they would be heard. The third term related to severe personal hardship, and I hope an appeal will not fall on deaf ears. I hope the members of the tribunal will hear the pleas of the people who have suffered severely, whether before or after stabilisation and whether it was as a result of their own bad luck or because of some natural hazard over which they had no control.

This is an industry that is dependent on so many things. From the date the ground is sterilised, by means of burning in the olden days or by chemical treatment now­adays, until the bale is knocked down there is continuous risk that the crop could be a complete write-off. The day before picking, a hail-storm or a wind-storm could come along and tear or damage the leaf. ~ the day the leaf first starts to sprout It could be attacked by some insect or bug, and here again there is extra expense.

Tobacco Industry [2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2065

The whole story of the growing of tobacco is one of obstacles from beginning to end and any help that this tribunal can give to the farmer who, through no fault of his own, finds he has more or less fallen down on the job will be appreciated. If he appears before the tribunal I hope he will get a fair hearing.

On the question of shortfalls in this year's crop and in future crops, I asked the Minister a question about a survey of the areas. He told me it would not be completed until the end of the year. I understand that the shortfalls will go from one selling-floor area to the other selling-floor area, and from then on in it goes from State to State. On the one hand Queensland may get the benefit of a shortfall in New South Wales. I take it that it will be an annual adjustment from State to State and from floor to floor. I have told all the growers in my area, "If I were you and I could afford it, I would plant a little above my quota." One cannot say, "Do this," because some cannot afford it. I say this because, first of all, I think there will be a shortfall and, secondly, if they grow quality leaf only they will be able to get rid of it.

Those are a few observations I wish to make on this Bill. I end with the plea that at any other time when an industry like this is requiring help, do not let it almost stop before something is done.

Mr. ADAIR (Cook) {10.20 p.m.): I listened carefully to the debate tonight and I think every spe-aker had a fair knowledge of the industry. Quite a lot of good advice and information has been given. The crux of the trouble in the tobacco industry can be traced to the feet of Mr. Adermann. The time taken by him to implement the scheme caused many of the share farmers to leave the industry. The drop in price also caused these farmers, who had proved over the years that they were the mainstay of the industry, to walk off their properties.

I blame- Mr. Adermann for the time wasted in introducing the scheme and for the reduction in the tonnage allotted. If he had given the tonnage originally requested by our Minister for Primary Industries the-re would have been no trouble with quotas. I do not know why he did not do so instead of importing large quantities of leaf from Rhodesia, South Africa and other countries. He was responsible for cutting the tonnage allotted for the total Australian quota.

I support the stabilisation scheme because the majority of the farmers in my area support it. They know it is the only scheme­to which they can look to provide security in the industry. Although we will be supporting this sta·bilisation scheme tonight, it does not provide security for the growers so far as the buyers are concerned. They will rob the farmers in the prices paid for leaf as they did previously. As was said by an hon. member tonight, the average

price of 125d. should be 132d. There is no doubt that the companies would soon make that up by buying leaf of a good grade.

I have been on the auction floor in Mareeba, as has the hon. member for Tablelands and other interested hon. mem­bers, and I have seen what happens. I have seen Rothmans and Wills buyers refuse leaf at auction, They have walked past it without making a bid yet the same leaf was put back on the floor the next day and sold for 158d. a lb., and the bale was marked "Top factory grade". The buyers could not make such a mistake, for they know tobacco. Firstly, the appraiser judges the tobacco and then the buyers bid for it, but the buyers refused to bid for this tobacco. On the second day of the sales at Mareeba, Johnnie Nelson, the head buyer from Rothmans told me, when looking over the tobacco on the floor, "This would be the best tobacco in the world," yet the day before the buyers knocked it back.

I saw farmers who were so disgusted at having to take the tobacco back to their farms that they thought it was the end of the industry. At the next day's sale they got a reasonable price for that tobacco. Even with this stabilisation plan the buyers will not give the correct price for tobacco.

Mr. Row: Don't you think the Common­weaLth arbiter would have some say if they don't buy it?

Mr. ADAIR: They will buy it, but at a reduced price. The cost of production is Ss.

Mr. Row: That would be a very good figure.

Mr. ADAIR: That is the figure in the Mar.eeba area. Therefore a grower will not make· much profit if he receives 125d. There are two tobacco-farmers just outside the Mareeba area-they are in the Tablelands electorate-who are paying £14 an acre­foot for irrigation, and several others are paying £12 an acre-foot. I have taken this matter up with the Minister, but there has been no reduction in those prices. Although their quotas have been reduced these farmers are still paying those high water prices. I do not know how they will produce tobacco at those costs in the future.

Many share-farmers have left the tobacco industry and gone cane·-cutting or doing other work in the sugar industry. Most of them were good tobacco-growers. Many of them bought tobacco farms at high prices -some paid £35,000-12 months or 2 years before quotas were introduced. They did not get any credit for the tonnages they produced while share-farming; the farmer's quota was bas·ed on what they grew. When they went onto their own farms their quotas were based on their production in the two years. Several of them were hit by hail and mould. I saw one excellent crop of 12 acres on a farm owned by Dati Bros. Mould hit the crop the follow­ing day and I went out and had a look at

2066 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

it. The whole crop was ruined. As their quota was based on that tonnage, it is obvious that it would have been higher had they not been hit by mould. That happened to many farmers. I have presented cases on their behalf.

I know that members of the Interim Quota Committee are doing the best that they can. They have a very difficult job. However, no consideration has been given to farmers whose crops have been hit severely by mould and hail. The Dati brothers have been given a quota of only 5 tons. Two have gone cane­cutting and one is working on the farm to keep it going. Unless their quota is increased considerably, they will not be able to continue.

Mr. Row: What name did you say?

Mr. ADAIR: Dati Bros. There are many similar cases in my area and I am sure the hon. member for Tablelands, who has more tobacco-farmers in his electorate than I have, knows of many more.

Mr. How: What did you say their quota was?

Mr. ADAlR: Five tons.

1\fr. Row: It is seven tons.

Mr. ADAIR: It must have since been increased. However, seven tons is only a little over two tons each, and that is not a living tonnage, either. They have all the necessary barns and equipment, so the farm itself provides no excuse for granting only a small quota. A living tonnage would be at least five each. I know one farmer who has only 12 acres, and who has every inch of his ground under tobacco. It is well known that after a tobacco crop has been grown on it, land has to lie idle for at least two or three years. This farmer cannot follow that practice because, in order to keep his quota, he has to put all his land under tobacco. These anomalies exist, and there is nothing that I can do about them except bring them to the Minister's attention.

There are other farmers with quotas of 25 to 30 tons. Naturally they must have grown that quantity of tobacco or they would not have received such quotas. I have pointed out to the Minister that farmers who have paid high prices for properties that produce low tonnages have no chance of obtaining finance from banks. Quotas in the tobacco industry are very much like assignments in the sugar industry. Banks will not lend money to farmers who have not sufficient quotas to be able to repay their indebtedness. Banks have closed down on some farmers, and others have no chance of carrying on under these conditions. Only increased quotas would enable them to continue, and I cannot see anv quotas being increased unless some­thing drastic is done.

I contend that the whole problem facing farmers in the Mareeba area is the quota system. Everyone knows that that is the best

tobacco-growing area in Queensland. That is recognised by tobacco buyers, and under the stabilisation plan they will suffer because a certain tonnage of tobacco has to be bought in the Mareeba-Dimbulah area and a certain tonnage in Brisbane.

The tobacco that comes to Brisbane from outlying areas is inferior to the tobacco grown at Mareeba. I have been to sales in Brisbane and, with the little knowledge that I have, it is obvious to me that the tobacco sold here is of lower quality. In spite of this, buyers are forced to buy a certain tonnage of leaf in Brisbane and a certain tonnage in M areeba, which means that tobacco which is far superior to the tobacco sold in Brisbane is left unsold in Mareeba.

I do not know whether the stabilisation plan is good or bad, but it is the only plan that the tobacco-farmers think will bring some sort of stability to the industry.

Mr. UCKISS (Mt. Coot-tha) (10.36 p.m.): I wish to be associated with the introduction of this Bill because I believe that, for the first time, we are beginning to see the light on the tobacco industry.

The hon. member for Cook, who has just resumed his seat, attacked the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Adermann, and I should like to comment on that particularly. Apparently the hon. member lays all the blame for the delay that has occurred in introducing this scheme at the feet of Mr. Adermann because he was unable to arrange some sort of an agreement before this. I remind the hon. member that this was not a similar proposal to organising the sugar industry, for argument's sake, because sugar is grown predominantly in Queensland. This State's quota of tobacco is 14,000,000 lb., Victoria's is about 9,500,000 lb., and New South Wales has a quota of about 2,500,000 lb. Each State has sovereign powers over its primary production, and the responsibility for reaching agreement rests fairly and squarely on the three States.

Mr. O'Donnell: It took 15 years to get them to agree on the poultry industry.

Mr. LICKISS: The Committee is discussing the tobacco industry at the moment. The hon. member can have a cackle about the poultry industry later.

Mr. Sherrington: You are saying that the trouble comes back to our own Minister?

Mr. LICKISS: I believe that the three State Governments and the Commonwealth Government are to be complimented for see­ing fit to legislate so that the quota system will :become a fait accompli. It is a very desirable step and it will afford relief to many tobacco-growers.

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: Mr. Adermann did a good job.

Mr. UCKISS: I agree with the Minister for Works and Housing. I think everyone should be very pleased that the three States and the Commonwealth have conferred and

Tobacco Industry (2 DECEMBER] Stabilisation Bill 2067

devised a workable scheme that will remove a certain amount of worry that has plagued tobacco-growers in Queensland for so long.

There are problems associated with every scheme, and questions will have to be asked and answered relative to the proposed stabilisation scheme. The Minister mentioned that the quota will attach to both the grower and the land. I think it will be necessary to determine to which the quota does attach, because if it attaches to the land and becomes virtually a form of licence or assignment on the land, it will have a direct effect on the v,duation of the land.

The hon. member for Burnett mentioned that some of the large growers in his area who have received reduced quotas might find that their farms are over-capitalised. Whether or not the farms are over-capitalised, I should say that the value these people will be able to obtain from their farms will be related directly to the quota they now possess. If we say that a quota attaches to both the land and the grower we have to ask ourselves whether, in fact, the quota can be transferred without the farm being transferred, and whether a quota can be sold separately from the land. Those are all problems that I think will have to be answered.

Some farms, of course, may show quite a capital appreciation by receiving a quota over and above that which they expected and, by the same token, other farms that receive a lower quota will consequently show a depreciated value. I do not think we can overlook this situation, because it will have to be determined.

I am also wondering how the matter of over-quota production will be treated. The i'vfinister again said that quotas attached both to persons and to land. If a quota attaches to a person and he has a shortfall in his quota production, is there anything to stop him joining with his neighbour who has over-quota production and filling his own quota? That is, if the quota attaches to the person.

Mr. O'Donnell: I do not think you listened very carefully to the Minister. He explained that point.

Mr. LICKISS: These are matters that will have to be explained a little more clearly, I suggest. Again, if we attach a quota to the person we do not necessarily attach it to his production. This is also something that has to be explained.

Mr. Lloyd: It also attaches to the land and the suitability of the soil.

Mr. LICKISS: In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, with cane-growing the assignment attaches to the land, and to a particular area of land. In fact, to shift from one block of land to a portion of land on the same property that is not assigned requires quite a deal of paper work and inspection before one can get a substitution area. Apparently that will not apply under

the system of growing tobacco. A grower can probably grow it anywhere he likes, and I cannot see from what the Minister has said so far just how this will work out.

As I say, there are two components here, namely, the land and the grower. No-one will deny that the growing of tobacco is a rather risky business. However, it can be grown on soils which are often unsuitable for other agricultural pursuits and the land husbandry of a tobacco-grower possibly has to excel that in many other agricultural pursuits. It is one of the few industries that does not necessarily thrive on what one might term very fertile soil. In fact, an over-abundance of nitrogen, for argument's sake, in the growing stage can spoil the leaf. There are many diseases and many pests. By the very nature of the tobacco plant-it is a hydroscopic plant-it is very critical of the ty,pe and quantity of water that is used. Only a certain type of water can be- used. I am very pleased to say that we are now well on the way to sorting out at least a stable scheme so that the grower, having produced a crop, will know that he can sell it. His only worries now will be the production of the crop.

I commend the Minister and all those associated with the introduction of the scheme, and I look forward to examining the Bill in more detail after it is printed.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (10.45 p.m.): The hon. member for Mt. Coo.t-tha mentioned that it would be possible for growers to transfer their quotas which have been allocated by the quota committee from time to time. In other words, they can sell those quotas as quotas when selling the land, the experience being that a quota could be transferred to another area to be used for the purpose of growing tobacco.

I do not know the basis of allocation, and I would like this to be explained to me by the Minister. The tobacco quota is not only based on production by the grower over the years concerned, but the suitability of the soil in which he has to grow the tobacco. The availability of water is also taken into consideration.

In other words, where a man is growing tobacco on one property and he has sufficient area to allow rotation of crops with suitability of soil and adequate water supply, it is quite possible on this basis of allocation that the quota committee could decide that that man could have a larger quota than he would in circumstances where the land is not as suitable. If this is to be the basis of allocation, surely a man who is producing tobacco on one area of land is not to be allowed to sell his quota as a piece of merchandise and have it transferred to another piece of land which may not be suitable for tobacco-growing.

That seems to be the position, that is, that the quota itself will be actually attached to the land where the grower is at present producing tobacco.

2068 Tobacco Industry [ASSEMBLY] Stabilisation Bill

Mr. Row: It stops trafficking in quotas, too.

Mr. LLOYD: This position has been going on now for quite a number of years in this attempt to stabilise the tobacco-growing industry.

I had the opportunity of accepting an invitation from the growers at Barron River to visit properties in about 1962. That was the time when the Australian proportion of tobacco used by manufacturers had been reduced by the Commonwealth Goverrunent from 43 per cent. to 40 per cent., and there was considerable indignation on the part of the growers at that "Lime. The excuse given by the Commonwealth Government was that the tobacco manufac­turers had informed the Commonwealth Government that it was not easy to utilise the complete production of Australian tobacco because they had to manufacture cigarettes or tobacco which suited the Australian taste. The very fact that the tobacco might have been good enough in quality ~as not sufficient. The type of leaf the'Y had 1mport~d from overseas was such that certam types of tobacco grown in Australia ~ould not be blended with it to produce the smtable blend of manufactured tobacco or cigarette.

That has always struck me as an ~r%l!ment which points directly to the responsibJ!Ity of the overseas companies, wh!ch ar~ controlli~g the tobacco manufactunng mterests m Australia. We know that the British Tobacco Company, which is W. D. & H. 0. Wills, and Rothmans of Pall Mall, and other British and American companies, Philip Morris and Godfrey Phillips-the four big manufacturing establishments in Australia at the present time-are controlled by <;>verseas companies who also have tobacco mterests in other parts of the world. In al!y event, here in Australia they cannot dictate to their overseas people what type and blend of tobacco will be imported into Australia.

It seems to me that a waiting period of 12 months would have been of assistance to this scheme if there had been an insistence that the tobacco manufacturers import certain blends of tobacco into Australia which would produce a commodity sl!i~~ble to Austral!an tastes· in other words, utihsmg the productiOn of tobacco in Australia and then importing from overseas the type of tobacco which would readily blend to give the required product.

It seems to me that this has been allowed to go on for too long and the greatest problem in this country has been the la~k of initiative on the part of the people m Australia in the investment of capital. People who have money readily ava_ilable have refused over all these years to mvest it in their own Australian tobacco companies, which would utilise the Australian tobacco and then import from other countries. a proportion of tobacco of the type which could blend with the Australian tobacco and give the consumer the product he wants.

Over the years there has been a tendency for Australian investors to refuse to accept the fact that they have a ready field here for investment of their money to produce an Australian product. For years there was a virtual monopolistic company in the tobacco industry, namely W. D. & H. 0. Wills and its subsidiaries. However, Rothmans of Pall Mall came to Australia and commenced manufacturing. They gained a share of the Australian market and pros­pered because of the high demand for their product. This occurred at a time . when Australian investors had an opportumty to invest. Then, Philip Morris, or Godfrey Phillips International Pty. Ltd. commenced operations, as did other companies, and I understand that another company named Gallaher is to commence operations in Aus­tralia and the Australian investor has again missed the boat.

The main point seems to be that year after year the Federal Government has refused to insist upon tobacco manufacturers importing only a certain type of leaf to be blended with the Australian product. Tobacco produced at Mareeba in one year may be readily absorbed by the manufacturers, yet, in the following year the same type of good­quality tobacco is produced and the com­panie-s refuse to accept it. The manufac­turers may have a large quantity left on their hands from the previous year but the arowers produced the leaf in the following year on the understanding that it was accept­able and that the manufacturers would pur­chase the same quantity.

The industry has suffered a number of uos and downs, with one year prosperous and the next year a virtual recession because of intermittent purchasing by the manufac­turers. I think it was proved when the interim quotas were established that in a number of cases growers suffered great hard­ship. It was left to the Queensland Gover~­ment to sort out quotas among growers m Queensland.

At Mareeba or Dimbulah a man may not have gone into production on his own land until 1963. He may have had only one year's production before quotas were introduced, but he may have capitalised on plant, barns and irrigation equipment and made a fairly high caoital investment on an expected quota production of 10 or 12 tons, whereas he may have produced only five tons in the first yea-t and he may intend to produce tobacco on a permanent basis. The e.arly experience of •the Interim Quota Committee was that these growers were severely a.ffected by the interim quotas. They capitalised to such an extent that they owed the banks large sums. When the Interim Quota Co.m­mittee indicated that they had a productiOn peak of six or seven tons, which was to carry on for three or four years, the banks immediately notified the farmers that the farms were not economic propositions and refused to grant sufficient financial accom­modation to continue production. As I see

Tobacco Industry, &c., Bill (2 DECEMBER) Fish Supply Management Bill 2069

it, the present basis of allocation will not be greatly changed. Some people were given a quota of four or five tons a year, and they are only week-end growers.

Mr. Nicklin: He would be busy producing four or five tons working only on week-ends.

Mr. LLOYD: I am not sure of the ton­nage; it may not have been as high as that. But they can produce their tonnages with­out working full time on tobacco production and would produce more if they worked full time. Some people who were given a quota of seven or eight tons have insufficient land to produce that tonnage consistently. To produce six or seven tons each year a grower would need enough land to grow three times that tonnage so that he can practise rotation. The Interim Quota Committee gave to some growers quotas which they have no hope of filling if they rotate their crops.

I give credit to the three State Ministers for endeavouring to convince the Common­wealth Government to increase the total Aus­tralian quota from 24,000,000 lb. to 26,000,000 lb. in order to give present growers a better opportunity to succeed and to keep more growers in the industry. If the pro­posal put forward by the State Ministers had been agreed to by the Commonwealth, fewer growers would have been forced out of the industry.

For three years prior to the introduction of this scheme Queensland produced far in excess of 14,000,000 lb. In an answer to one of my questions the Minister said that the sales had not exceeded 14,000,000 lb. But I point out that in 1960-61 Queensland pro­duced 16,000,000 lb., in the following year 15,800,000 lb., and in 1963-64, a figure in excess of 14,000,000 lb. It is obvious that this scheme will succeed only if a number of growers are forced to retire.

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Primary Industries) (1 0.59 p.m.), in reply: As I expected, the introduction of this Bill has engendered a good deal of discussion. In the main it has been non-political. There have been many speeches of interest relative to the basic principles of the Bill, quotas, and their effect on the financial circumstances of the growers. The hour is getting late, and I understand that there is still another Bill to be dealt with tonight. As I feel that I could not do justice to the matters raised in the debate this evening in only a short time, I propose to deal much more fully with them in my second-reading speech.

Motion (Mr. Row) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Row, read a first time.

FISH SUPPLY MANAGEMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. J. D. HERBERT (Sherwood-Minis­ter for Labour and Industry) (11.3 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the management and control of the supply and marketing of fish throughout the State."

This measure contains some new features, and also consolidates the original measure introduced in 1935 and amendments thereto since that date.

It is of interest to repeat the view expressed by the then Minister for Labour and Industry that, amongst other things, the necessity for the establishment of a procedure for the orderly supply and marketing of fish in Queensland had been a problem which had continuously received the attention of succes­sive Governments from the commencement of the present century.

The establishment of a Fish Board has done much to place the fishing industry in this State in a reasonably satisfactory condi­tion, and especially is this so when one has regard to the problems that gluts and shortages of supply create in efforts to stabilise the industry. The fact that the Fish Board now has assets to the value of £602.833 is indicative of the usefulness of the present legislation.

It has already been announced that steps are being taken to provide better facilities for the marketing of fish in the metropolitan area by constructing at Colmslie a modern and up-to-date fish market, with ancillary facilities. During the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Labour and Industry, I submitted for perusal of hon. members the architect's impression of what the final com­pleted project will be, and I am sure all could not help but be impressed with the great improvement that will take place in the marketing facilities to be provided at the new site.

It has, of course, been evident for some time that the present facilities at Stanley Street, South Brisbane, are outmoded and that it is not an appropriate place for such a market. As the construction of this project is under the expert guidance and super­vision of the Co-ordinator-General of Public Works, I am confident that the final project at Colmslie will be consistent with modern­day demands and requirements and that moneys being made available for its con­struction will be used to the best advantage.

Allied with this progressive move is the decision to establish, as from 1 January 1966, a North Queensland Fish Board. This decision also is in keeping with the decentralisation policy of the Government. Although •he decision to establish such a

2070 Fish Supply [ASSEMBLY] Management Bill

board is the principal reason why this legisla­tion is being introduced, certain other new provisions are also considered to be warranted.

In regard to the decision to establish a North Queensland Fish Board, some little time ago the Government appointed a North Queensland Fish Marketing Research Authority to investigate the desirability and practicability of establishing a separate North Queensland Fish Board, the principal pre­requisite being, of course, that its establish­ment should be an economic proposition. The then chairman of the Fish Board, who was a member of that committee, subsequently submitted a detailed report, in which he advised that it was now clear that such a board could be established on an economic basis.

In support of this view, the report stated that the North Queensland Fish Marketing Research Committee had considered the following matters associated with such a proposal-

Fish marketing in North Queensland; the integration with marketing in South­

ern Queensland; the economic feasibility of the proposed

establishment of such a board; and the most suitable location for the head

office of the proposed board. The research authority drew attention to the fact that the Department of Harbours and Marine had advised that arrangements had been made with the C.S.I.R.O. to conduct a survey, which began in August last, to endeavour to ascertain the prawn and tuna possibilities in North Queensland waters. Although the results of this survey are not yet known, the then chairman of the Fish Board reported that, after a careful examina­tion of the economic position, no reason could be seen why a North Queensland Fish Board could not now be self-supporting, even without the possible potential that may be disclosed when the survey is completed.

The intake of fish is stable, and more fish are now being sold in North Queensland. For the 12 months ended 30 June, 1964, 1,491,273 lb. of fish and 81,798 lb. of prawns were received in North Queensland whereas for the 12 months ended June, 1965, the totals were 1,441,403 lb. of fish and 101,698 lb. of prawns. The net profit of the four northern markets and the two agencies for the year 1963-64 was £4,699; for the 12 months ended 30 June, 1965, the net pmfit was £3,789. The financial position of the North Queensland Board will be improved further when it receives its share of a credit of £6,318 payable by the Towns­ville Regional Electricity Board.

After carefully considering all aspects of the matter. the Government decided that a board in North Queensland could operate economic­ally and to the advantage of the prawners, fishermen and consumers in North Queens­land. and so has decided to establish it as from I January, 1966. The area coming

within the jurisdiction of the board will be that part of the State lying north of the 22nd parallel of south latitude, which crosses the coastline between St. Lawrence and Sarina. The present Fish Board will retain control of the industry south of that parallel of latitude. The name "Fish Board" will be retained for the southern board because it is a name with which is associated the export of quality fish and prawns from Queensland and to alter it to, say, the South Queensland Fish Board would destroy the present good reputation of these products overseas.

The North Queensland Fish Board will consist of a chairman, a representative of the fishermen and prawners, a representative of consumers, and the secretary, who will be an ex officio member thereof. Members of the board, including the chairman, will be appointed by the Governor in Council.

At the earliest opportunity, arrangements will be made by the secretary for the repre­sentative of fishermen and prawners to be selected by an election. As time will not permit of the first representative of fisher­men and prawners being selected by an election, he will be appointed by the Governor in Council.

The Governor in Council will retain his power to cancel the appointment of any member of the board at any time and, whilst the original appointment will provide that the appointments made are for a term of three years, the Government has decided that, in so far as the first appointee as the representative of the fishermen and prawner_s is concerned, he will remain in office untJI such time as a ballot is conducted, by the secretary of the board, among the fishermen and prawners to select their representative on the board. The original appointee will remain in office for a maximum period of one year only, or until the fishermen and prawners elect their representative, whichever period is the shorter.

I repeat a firm undertaking_ is here~y. giv~n that whilst there is no specrfic provrswn Ill the 'Bill in this regard, the first appointee as the representative of the fisherm~n and prawners will only hold office until such time as the fishermen and prawners elect their own representative.

Mr. Houston: Can the Governor ic Council remove their elected representative at a later stage?

Mr. HERBERT: The Governor in Council has that power but it would be used only in exceptional cases.

Mr. Houston: What would happen then? Would thev have to elect another repre­sentative? · You would not sack one and appoint another. There would be another election?

Mr. HERBERT: Yes.

Fish Supply [2 DECEMBER) lvfanagement Bill 2071

It is proposed that, for the time being at least, the chairman of the Fish Board be also the chairman of the North Queens­land board and, with a view to assisting the North Queensland board and to avoid costly and unnecessary duplication, apart from the secretary, who will be located in Townsville, which will be the headquarters of the board, all clerical, accounting and other work dur­ing the initial stages and until otherwise determined by the Governor in Council shall be performed by the Fish Board in Brisbane, for which a charge to be determined by the Governor in Council will be made on the North Queensland board.

Subsequent to this period, this arrangement may continue by agreement between the boards. This will include inspectorial, technical and research activities for the whole of Queensland, and both boards, it is expected, will work in close co-operation with each other. All assets lying north of the 22nd parallel of south latitude will be taken over by the North Queensland board, as will appropriate loan liabilities in connection therewith.

The apportionment of profit and appro­priation reserves will be made in the pro­portion which the value of the fish received in North Queensland for the year ended 30 June, 1965, bears to the value of the total fish received throughout the State during that period. Consideration was given as to whether the apportionment should be made on the basis of weight and not of value. However, it is estimated that by making the apportionment on the basis of value, the North Queensland board will receive approxi­mately £40,571 as against £32,912 if the apportionment had been made on a weight basis.

An examination reveals that adoption of the value of the receivals for the year ended 30 June, 1965 is fair and equitable. The percentage of the weight of receivals of fish in North Queensland during the four years ended 30 June, 1964, averages 11·19 per cent. of the receivals for the whole of the State, and the percentage of such receivals for the year ended 30 June, 1965, was 11·96 per cent.

At the present time it is known that there is prevalent a practice whereby fishermen fil!et fish at sea, return to Queensland and scil the frozen fillets other than through the Fish Board. Therefore, the definition of "fish" is being enlarged to ensure that, in the interests of the industry such fillets are included in the definition of "fish", which will require that they be passed through the Fish Markets. This will also apply to prawns cooked at sea and brought to the mainland.

Another practice which has developed is that whereby hotel proprietors, rooming houses, which include motels and so forth, receive fish other than through the Fish Board and serve it at meals. When inter­rogated the excuse has been given that the

fish is only being held in storage for fisher­men who are going to collect it later. Requests have been received from fishermen for this practice to be controlled. The definition of "to sell" has therefore been replaced by definitions of "sale" and "supply for profit", so as to control such a practice. In cases where a proprietor satisfies a board that he catches his own fish for supply as meals to his guests, he will be able to make application for a permit of exemption.

Hon. members will agree that persons to be eligible for appointment to a board should be persons who have not at any time con­travened the provisions of the Fish Supply and Management Acts and have not a con­viction recorded against them, and provision is being made accordingly.

Employees who presently are contributors to the Fish Supply Superannuation Fund, and who, when the North Queensland board comes into operation, will become employees of the northern board, will have their superannuation rights preserved.

The Fish Board presently can obtain loan moneys only through the Treasury. Fire brigade boards and other boards have power also to raise loan moneys by way of deben­ture loans. Both fish boards now are being given this right also.

Looking forward to future years, the time could arrive, and I feel confident that it will, when both boards will desire to manage all affairs on their own, subject of course to the overriding paternal interest and con­trol of the Government and of the Treasury.

Provision, there·fore, is being made that, where it is considered desirable that the Fish Supply Management Fund be discontinued, and separate funds be established, such separation shall take rplace along the lines set down in the Bill. Should this occur, a board will have power, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, to invest surplus funds on the short-term money market.

A board will be given authority to deter­mine the market or depot or other place to which fish, either generally or in par­ticular, shall be brought. The provision is a new one, and has particular application to fish brought to the Brisbane Metropolitan Market from interstate sources. This fish is supplied by fishermen's co-operative in northern New South Wales, and is dis­tributed in Queensland by an agent for the co-operatives. The fish is brought to the metropolitan market, in accordance with clause 26 of the present Acts, for inspec­tion and certification as fit for human con­sumption. It is not sold by the board. It is considered most desirable that the Fish Board should be in a position to determine the market or depot or other place, at which such fish is to be inspected.

2072 Fish Supply [ASSEMBLY] Management Bill

Provision is also being made regarding the problem of fish commonly known as "earthy". Consumers of mullet will, I am sure, at some time or other have experienced eating such fish. "Earthy" fish must not be confused with "wash-out" mullet and "mud­in-the-gut" mullet. Fish in a condition known as 'earthy" are fish, the flesh of which has an earthy taste. This condition which is found in fish caught in land-locked, stagnant waters is brought about by environment.

The methods employed in the detection of the condition vary according to the degree to which the fish are affected. In severe cases an earthy odour can be detected with­out the fish be.ing removed from the boxes in which they are transported. In O'ther instances it is necessary to remove scales from around the tail area of the fish, or to fillet the fish for the purpose of examining the flesh, in order to establish the exist­ence of an "earthy" condition. The detec­tion of an "earthy" condition is by odour, except in cases where the degree of taint is slight, in which instances it may be necessary to cook the flesh for the purpose of a palatability test.

Approximately 90 per cent. of "earthy" fish marketed in Queensland are received from New South Wales. Fish in a con­dition known as "earthy" are banned from sale in New South Wales, hence their appearance from time to time on the market in Queensland.

Fish described as "wash-out" mullet are fish which are forced out of rivers due to a heavy run-off of fresh water as the result of torrential rai:n. These fish which are affected by the eJCisting fresh conditions are often caught as they travel towards the sea.

"Wash-out" fish are quite palatable as a whole, although the keeping qualities of the fish are impaired. It is necessary to fillet "wash-out" fish within a short time of the fish being caught if the flesh is to be saved, as fish so affected deteriorate at a much faster rate than fish which are not exposed to fresh conditions. There has been no incidence of "wash-out" mullet during the last two years, due to the generally dry conditions during this period.

A "mud-in-the-gut" condition in mullet is not classed as a major problem. Fish in this condition are usually caught in the upper reaches of rivers and inlets. Mullet with "mud in the gut" will deteriorate if kept whole, and, because of this, fish in this condition are not suitable for display in whole form in retail fish shops. This does not generally detract from the normal market value of the fish, as mostly smaller mullet are affected, which fish, be-cause of their size, are usually filleted. The palat­ability of fish with "mud in the gut" is affected only in a limited number of instances.

The regulation-making power relating to "ea!'thy" fish, in Schedule H to the Bill is concerned only with fish in this particular

condition, the marketing of which is viewed with concern by all members of the board, in v.iew of the adverse effect it must have on consumers of mullet. Subject to their oer.tification as fit for human consumption in the usual manner, no res•triction will be placed on the sale of "wash-out" or "mud­in-the-gut" fish.

As 36· 5 per cent. of the fish received during the 12 months ended 30 June, 1965, was mullet, the adverse effect which the marketing of "earthy" mullet in Queensland has, principally because its sale is pwhibited in New South Wales, can be appreciated.

As stated, it is not pmposed to permit the existence of the sale of mullet, which is a very popular and reasonably priced fish, to be jeopardised by allowing "earthy" mullet from another State which prohibits its sale to be able to be sold here.

The widening of the definition of "fish", as mentioned previously, could be of particular importance to the North Queensland Fish Board, since it is largely to northern ports that vessels have been returning with fillets frozen at sea, which were not marketed through the board. It is in North Queensland particularly that this practice could spread, to the detriment of the new board's revenue. From the point of view of the existing Fish Board, the widened definition takes in prawns cooked at sea, which are not included in the present definition. This is a serious weakness of the existing legislation.

Hon. members will see from the provisions of this Bill that it is the aim of the Govern­ment to assist the North Queensland Board in establishing itself, as soon as possible, as a completely self-contained and autonomous body. To duplicate immediately many of the facilities, e.g. inspection, research, clerical and accounting, would only be an unnecessary duplication and waste. Consequently the Fish Board will, under this Bill, be empowered to assist the Northern Board to become firmly established, and I am sure the desirability of continuing all of the arrange­ments mentioned, or the dovetailing or simpli­fication of them will be under continual examination by both boards.

My colleague, the Minister for Justice, the Hon. P. R. Delamothe, has been an ardent advocate for some time of the establishment of a separate North Queensland Fish Board, and I express to him my appreciation of his valuable assistance, by way of advice con­cerning the position in North Queensland, which has assisted me to recommend with confidence the steps now being taken to estab­lish a separate and independent North Queensland Fish Board.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (11.22 p.m.): I am afraid that the Minister spoke so quickly during his introductory remarks that we will be debating a great many of the principles of the Bill at the second-reading stage, which may be a wise move.

Fish Supply [2 DECEMBER] Management Bill 2073

I have one or two comments to make about the establishment of the North Queens­land Fish Board at Townsville. This may be acceptable to all hon. members and to the fishing industry itself. However, many professional fishermen are not very happy; indeed, they deeply resent the Government's treatment of them over the past few years. Generally speaking, decentralisation should be beneficial to the industry. At present, the Fish Board has control of the marketing of fish between Southport and Cairns. There are about 18 agencies, with considerably divided control, hesitancy in policy, and a number of other things which may be over­come by the establishment of a board in North Queensland.

Several years ago, when mackerel were running very well in North Queensland and there was a glut in Townsville, depots along the coast, particularly on the North Coast, could not secure mackerel supplies from Townsville although there was a ready demand in their areas. They had to approach the Fish Board in Brisbane and apparently the board had to go through a complicated procedure before giving approval for the surplus mackerel in North Queensland to go to the other depots. When we remember that about 18 agencies could take the surplus fish to facilitate a quick exchange, it will be seen that markets could be lost because of the complications involved. By decentralised control of the Fish Board in North Queens­land, perhaps in Central Queensland, and in South Queensland, when there is a glut at Townsville or Rockhampton surpluses could be disposed of by an exchange between the various depots. Several fish depots have not been able to secure fish when others have had a surplus. Decentralisation of the Fish Board should react with benefit to the State and the fishing industry.

One of the adverse features of this industry at present is that its control is divided. Marketing is controlled by the Department of Labour and Industry and licensing is con­trolled by the Treasury Department. That is a ridiculous situation. There is a feeling amongst professional fishermen-! believe they are right-that they are being sacrificed by the many restrictions imposed upon them by the Treasury Department. Requests for new areas or trawl fishing licences have been rejected because the Treasury Department considers it is essential to preserve the estuaries and creeks as breeding grounds. Yet that department issues bait licences ad lib to any person who wants one, and that person can go into estuaries and streams with a small-mesh bait net and cause more destruc­tion than a professional fisherman would.

Mr. Herbert: That is the Fisheries Act.

Mr. LLOYD: I know. But I am talking about divided control. Why was the control of the Fish Board taken from the Treasury Department? Marketing is controlled by one department and licensing by another depart­ment. That is an incredible set of circum­stances. Surely this industry should be tightly

organised. But the fishing industry in this State has been neglected for many years. The professional fishermen are not organised suf­ficiently to enable them to participate in the full potential of this industry.

Japan is coming into the area and obtain­ing the benefit because the Japanese industry is organised. Nothing is being done to encourage the growth of this industry in Queensland. The prawning industry has become a very important industry. Prawns are exported to Japan, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Malta, and many other European countries. That industry has been expanding since 1955. Many advantages can be gained by the growth of the fishing indus­try in Queensland. But it will not develop while two different departments are control­ling it.

The Minister does not appear to be greatly interested in this. He mentioned licences. People living outside a certain radius of a fish board or depot are exempted from supplying the board. That regulation was introduced many years ago when transport was not so good. Farmers who live between Caloundra and the southern entrance of the Bribie Passage can have a net licence and can trawl, and they are not required to supply the Fish Board. They can sell fish at any place at all, although they are catching the fish within spitting distance of Glass House or Beerwah. They all have their own means of transport and could quite readily get their commodity to market if they so desired.

These exemptions have been granted from time to time and they are affecting the livelihood of professional fishermen who. from the South Coast to Mooloolaba and perhaps a little farther north, are at present undergoing a period of hardship. Many of them may be forced out of the industry unless the Government does something to assist them. Unknown to the Department of Labour and Industry, restrictions are imposed on fishing areas by the Treasury Department. The most popular trawling grounds for mullet are being taken away because, in the opinion of officers of the Treasury Department, areas along beaches are suitable for body surfing and board riding.

Mr. Low: I think you are talking a lot of tripe on this issue.

Mr. LLOYD: It is not tripe at all; it is what has been put to me by professional fishermen who saw me by deputation no more than three weeks ago. Probably the only reason they came to see me was that they could not see the member representing the North Coast area.

Mr. Low: There is no prohibition on catching mullet.

Mr. LLOYD: There are certain areas that are closed all the year round to professional fishermen in that area. In other parts of Bribie Passage they can trawl at certain periods of the year. There is,

2074 Questions [ASSEMBLY]

however, no restriction on the activities of others who have been granted licenses by the Treasury Department and who can sell their catch outside the Fish Board or its a6encies.

All of these things have operated for a fairly long time against the interests of pro­fessional fishermen. Strangely enough, they never seem to be able to get through to the Government, yet professional fishermen are just as important to the industry as is the marketing organisation. I repeat that it is nther strange to see the administration of this industry split between two departments.

Hon. J. D. HERBERT (Sherwood-Minis­ter for Labour and Industry) (11.33 p.m.), in reply: It was my intention to say that I would reserve my reply till the second-reading stage. However, as the Deputy Leader of the Oppo­sition discussed another Act, it appears that I shall not have much to reply to. I remind him that the divided control to which he referred was instituted long before this Government came to office. The Fish Board came under the administration of the Depart­ment of Labour and Industry many years ago, and fishing was administered by the Treasury Department. It was when the hon. member for Bundaberg was Treasurer that they were brought together. It is nothing new to have them under two departments, and it certainly was not introduced by this Government.

Motion (Mr. Herbert) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Herbert, read a first time.

The House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.

Questions