legislative assembly thursday march

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 1946

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions. (28 MARCH.] Questions. 2147

THURSDAY, 28 MARCH, 1946.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Brassington, Fortitude Valley) took the chair at 11 a.m.

QUESTIONS. TRAIN SERVICE, BRISBANE ABATTOIRS.

Mr. GUNN (Wynnum) asked the Minister for Transport-

'' Is he in a position to indicate whether it is practicable to accede to my representations on behalf of the employees at the Brisbane abattoirs for the first train into the abattoirs in the morning to proceed to the platform~''

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani) replied-" It is doubtful whether the time between

the two trains is sufficient to allow of the request being acceded to, but a trial will be made a,g from Monday next, 1 April, subject to discontinuance if it be found that deJay is occasioned to the second train.''

GAMMEXANE INSECTICIDE AND BUFFALO FLY.

Mr. THEODORE (Herbert) asked the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock-

'' 1. Has he noticed the statement appearing in Tuesday's 'Telegraph' of the disc•overy of a new insecticide claimed to be seven times as effective as D.D.T. ~

"2. Will he have inquiries made regarding the possibility of its being used to combat the buffalo fly~"

Hon. H. H. COLLINS (Cook) replied-, ' 1 and 2. This insecticide, known as

Gammexane (666), has been in commercial production in England since 1943, and is used for pest control. Experiments hav·e been conducted in this State for the past six months on vegetable pests, but success cannot yet be guaranteed. Experiments are being devised for the use of the insecticide in buffalo fly control, and these are now in the laboratory stage.''

RAILWAY WORKSHOPS DISPUTE.

::IIr. PIE (Windsor) asked the Minister for Transport-

' 'In view of the seriousness of the report that the Railway Union plans a State-wide workshop strike, will he report to this House details of the present dispute lJetween his Government and the railway 1~nions ~ ''

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani) replied-'' The information desired by the hon.

member has already appeared in the daily Press.''

RAILWAY FREIGHT ON FLOUR.

:IIr. NICKLI~ (Murrumba) asked the Minister for Transport-

" Will he give favourable consideration to a reduction in the rail freights on flour from country mills to the rates charged on flour produced at Brisbane mills!''

Hon. E. J. W ALSH (Mirani) replied-'' The hon. member is obviously unaware

that the freight rates on flour for equal distances are the same from country mills as from Brisbane. ' '

ROYAL COMMISSION ON COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. PATERSON (Bowen) asked the Secretary for Mines-

'' 1. Has he received a copy of the report of the Commonwealth Royal Commission into the Coal Mining Industry~

'' 2. Will he table the ort in the House, if and when h · ives it, so that it will be available , iscussion by honourable members~''

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane) replied-

"1. No. "2. Yes."

GOVERNMENT EDUOATION POLICY.

Mr. PIE (Windsor) asked the Premier-'' Can the published statements of the

Secretary for Public Instruction, inter alia, '(a) that more life must be put into our education than has been the case in the past; (b) that we should mould our future on avoiding the mistakes of the past,' be read as ( i.) criticism of the Government's previous education policy and previous ministerial administration; or ( ii.) does it represent the considered views of Cabinet; or (iii.) the personal views of the present };Iinister who, from practical experience, should be well versed in past and future education problems~''

Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' I would draw the hon. member's atten

tion to 'Hansard,' 19 November, 1941, page 1340, in which, appears the following statement by Mr. Bruce Pie, M.L.A. for Hamilton:-' Before I entered this Assembly, or had any idea of politics, I had great respect for the Department of Public Instruction and the work it is doing in this State, and I must say that since I entered politics my respect for that department has grown. I feel that it is doing wonderful work in educating our children, the future citizens of this State, and I shall co-operate with it in every way I can to equip those future citizens to deal with any problems that may be ahead of them.' I agree with the hon. member that the Education Department has in the past done wonderful work in educating our children, but regret to say that the co-operation promised by the hon. member has not been forthcoming. This Government, being a La~our Governm~nt, is fundamentally progressive, and notWithstanding the wonderful work referred to by the hon: I?-ember, all Mi!listers, inc~uding the Mmister for Public Instruction, are continually planning to effect further improvements in the services available to the people.''

2148 Go-ordination of Rural, &c., [ASSEMBLY.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill.

FORM OF QUESTIONS.

MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. members, with regard to the question just answered by the Premier, I wish to announce that although I had doubts as to its compliance with the rules governing questions, inasmuch as it was hypothetical in form and sought an expression of opinion, I decided to allow it to remain on the paper.

Hon. members would help the Chair materially if they remembered that the first requirement in a question is that in form and subject~<l.\{matter it should be of a genuinely i~r~,9gative character.

~,x·Js:~:,'\ PAPER.

The following paper was laid on the table:-

Ordinance under the City of Brisbane Acts, 1924 to 1945 (21 March, 1946).

CO-ORDINATION OF RURAL ADVANCES AND AGRICULTURAL BANK ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION.

Hon. J. LARCOMBE (RockhamptonTreasurer) : I move-

'' That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness 0f introducing a Bill to amend the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and Agricultural Bank Acts, 1938 to 1945, in certain particulars, and for other purposes.'' Motion agreed to.

INITIATION IN COMJ\HTTEE.

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Manu, Brisbane, in the chair.)

Hon. J. LARCOlUBE (RockhamptonTreasurer) (11.10 a.m.): I move--

''That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to amend the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and Agricultural Bank Acts, 1938 to 1945, in certain particulars, and for other purposes.''

In June, 1945, the Commonwealth brought into operation the Re-establishment and Employment Act of 1945, which makes provision for the re-establishment in civil life of members of the fighting forces. Part of the Act provides for the granting of re-estn blishment loans in respect of agricultural occupations to certain classes of ex-servicemen. The State Government have been asked to administer that Act so far a;;; it applies to Queensland. The Agricultural Bank will act as the agent for the Commonwealth and the corporation of the Agricultural bank already has entered into an agreement with the Director of War Services (Land Settlement), Department of Post-War Reconstruction, under which the bank will undertake to make re-establishment loans to discharged eligible servicemen in respect of agricultural occupations. To enable the bank to make the loans validly under its own Acts and under its own name, it is necessary to

amend the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and Agricultural Bank Acts, 1938 to 1945.

This Bill will introduce a new part into those Acts, and, inter alia, will ratify _and approve of the agreement entered mto between the bank and the Commonwealth authorities. The Bill empowers the bank to make in its own name re-establishment loans pursuant to the agreement with the Commonwealth, take in its own name securities as may be deemed to be desirable and perform and exercise the functions and powers of the prescribed authority.

The agreement between the two Governments, which is also ratified in the Bill, provides as follows:-

That the prescribed authority shall advance to the Agricultural Bank from time to time moneys for the purpose of making loans to eligible ex-servicemen;

Such loans by the Commonwealth will be free of interest to the State;

The Commonwealth shall pay its half of the administrative expenses;

The Agricultural Bank shall not be liable for any losses.

The nature of the Commonwealth Act is a matter that does not particularly concern the State legislature, as we merely have to administer it, but I will explain its chief provisions for the information of hon. members. Loans under the Commonwealth Act may be made for a variety of purposes including (a) purchase or lease of land, erection of buildings, purchase or hire of plant; (b) purchase of stock; (a) reduction or discharge of mortgage or bill of sale or other encumbrances. To be eligible for a loan an applicant must immediately preceding his enlistment have been engaged in an agricultural occupation similar to which he intends re-entering. Further, he must have had six months' war service and be honourably discharged.

''Agricultural occupation'' has a very wide meaning. It includes farming, horticultural, viticultural, agricultural, dairy farming, poultry farming, pastoral or grazing operations, or other prescribed forms of farming and primary production. The security taken will include plant, equipment, stock, crop, mortgage over land and other assets.

The maximum amount that may be lent to any one eligible applicant may not exceed £1,000 nor be in excess of 90 per cent. of the bank's valuation of the securitv available. A second mortgage will be accepted. The period of redemption of the loan shall not exceed 30 years.

The interest payable on the loans shall he as follows: where the total amount advanced for all purposes does not exceed £50 no interest; where the total amount for all purposes exceeds £50 but does not exceed £250, for the first £50 nothing, on the amount over £50, 2 per cent. per annum; where the total amount advanced exceeds £250 but does not exceed £1,000, on the first £50 nothing, on the next £200, 2 per cent., and for the remainder up to the maximum of £1,000, 3:! per cent.

Go-ordination of Rural, &c., [28 MARCH.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2149

The provisions of the proposed Bill may be summarised as follows: it provides an additional aid for eligible ex-servicemen. Eligible ex-servicemen in certain circumstances will have two choices-they may apply under the State Act or they may apply under the Commonwealth Act. An eligible ex-serviceman who obtains the maximum amount under the State Act may obtain a second mortgage under the Commonwealth Act, if the total amount does not exceed 90 per cent. of the security. The maximum amount of the State loan is 80 per cent. The Bill is limited to ex-servicemen who have had previous experience in agricultural occupations. If an exserviceman has obtained from the State an advance of 80 per cent. of the valuation of his security he will be eligible to receive up to an extra 10 per cent., or a total of 90 per cent. of his security, on a second mortgage under the Commonwealth Act.

Mr. Maher: When you say agricultural, does that include pastoral~

Mr. LARCOlUBE : Yes. .ln Opposition lUember: The maximum

amount of the advance is £5,000~

Mr. LARCOMBE: Yes. Mr. M:acdonald: Ninety per cent. of the

equity~

Mr. LARC01IBE: Yes, 90 per cent. of the security.

Mr. Kerr: Does that mean if a borrower obtains £5,000 from the Commonwealth he may borrow a further £500 from the State~

Mr. LARCOMBE: No, this Act applies only to small borrowers, and the maximum amount of loan provided for is £1,000. Therefore it will be only to small borrowers that an advance will be made available.

Mr. Pie: It could be made available?

:Mr. LARCOMBE: Up to a maximum of £1,000 only-provided that the £1,000 maximum was not exceeded.

Mr. Maher: This does not conflict with the previous legislation providing for £5,000.

Mr. LARCOMBE: No, it is complementary. To the extent the ex-servicemen take advantage of the State Act, State funds will be relieved and be used otherwise, but the State with its limited funds will continue to supply the fullest possible assistance to ex-servicemen, but the Commonwealth with its much greater funds and its wider opportunities of raising revenue will supplement the State advances to ex-servicemen to their advantage.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) (11.19 a.m.): We will admit that it is necessary for the Treasurer to introduce legislation of this kind, because the Commonwealth also is entering into the picture and making re-establishment loans to eligible discharged servicemen for agricultural purposes. We will agree that it is advisable that the body handling these loans should be an established organisation such as the Agricultural Bank rather than that

the Commonwealth should set up a separate lending authority in this State. As the Government have agreed to the Commonwealth's proposal to allow its bank to be used, the Bill is necessary.

I am afraid that until the full provisions of this legislation are explained there is going to be a considerable amount of confusion among ex-servicemen wishing to obtain advances to enable them to go on the land. Admittedly the State Act and the Commonwealth Act help to a certain extent different classes of these men. The State for example does not make it obligatory that applicants should have been engaged in agricultural industry prior to enlistment, whereas the Commonwealth does; so there are two different classes who will apply for assistance. I suggest that before the bank does anything, immediately the Bill is passed it should prepare a pamphlet fully setting out the details of the State legislation and the details of the Commonwealth legislation, pointing out the difference and making recommendations to soldiers who may desire to borrow. If they do that, they will certainly avoid a considerable amount of confusion that undoubtedly will exist if that is not done.

Mr. Larcombe: That is a good suggestion; we intend to do that.

Mr. NICKLIN: Apparently the Minister realised that there undoubtedly would be confusion.

I hope that the administration of this legislation to re-establish soldiers on the land will be much more sympathetic and much more liberal than the re-establishment loans to soldiers going into industry. From representations that haYe been made to me by numbers of these men it seems very difficult to get any worth-while assistance whatsoever from the Commonwealth department for re-establishment of returned soldiers. Anybody who applies for a re-establishment loan from the Commonwealth department has all the obstacles in the world put up against him. It is extremely difficult to satisfy this department that the applicant is eligible for a loan. So I hope there will be a much more sympathetic administration of this section of re-establishment of soldiers than there is of the present re-establishment machinery that is at work in the State. However, I think we can reasonably hope that the Agricultural Bank will administer this Bill sympathetically because up to the present time, in the main it has given very sympathetic consideration to all applications by returned soldiers for assistance. So it may not be a bad idea that this legislation is to be controlled by a State instrumentality rather than a Commonwealth instrumentality.

There is one provision of this legislation that I think is definitely wrong, and that is that this help is limited entirely to servicemen who previously have had rural experience and engaged in rural activities prior to enlistment. That is a limiting factor that I do not think is desirable. Admittedly loans should not be made to men who are not capable of making a success of the =dertaking that they take up.


There should not be that limitation. There are many men who may not have been engaged in agriculture prior to the war who I think all hon. members will agree would be quite suitable for a loan of this kind.

Mr. Larcombe: That would be covered by the State Act.

Mr. NICKLIN: Admittedly. We must realise, in regard to re-establishment legislation, that many of the lads were only 18 when they enlisted. They had not made up their minds as to what occupation or vocation they would follow. Just as in the whole of the reestablishment legislation of the Commonwealth re-establishment aid is limited to those who had been engaged in a business previous to enlistment, so we find in this Bill the principle that they must have been engaged in an agricultural occupation before they are entitled to loans. That will prevent many young fellows who have served in the army for four or five years from getting assistance to follow a vocation merely because they did not happen to be engaged in it prior to their enlistment.

I did not clearly understand the points made by the Minister about the transfer of loans already made by the Agricultural Bank to servicemen. Did the hon. gentleman mean that on account of the possibly more advantageous interest rates that may be available under this legislation they could transfer loans already made by the Agricultural Bank on the ·terms of that bank to the Commonwealth with its re-establishment terms'

Mr. Larcombe: Under the State Act the maximum advance is 80 per cent. of the security; under this it is 90 per cent.

Mr. NICKLIN: I quite understand that but I understood the Minister to say that it would be possible to convert a mortgage given to the Agricultural Bank under the Agricultural Bank Act to a mortgage under the Commonwealth Re-establishment Act if so desired.

Mr. Larcombe: That will be considered.

Mr. NICKLIN: It would be advantageous in some instances, particularly the smaller loans, and I am glad to know the Minister is looking at that angle of the matter. It certainly would be of assistance to some men to be able to transfer to the Commonwealth instead of remaining under the State terms, even though the State terms are quite advantageous and quite sympathetic to borrowers. The three years' interest-free period provided in the State Act is an advantage, I think. Under the Commonwealth terms the first £50 is free of interest and the next £200 is at the rate of 2 per cent.

Mr. Hilton: What about the redemptionfree period'

Mr. NICKLIN: That is an advantage. I am not saying anything against the State Act. It is an advantageous Act and very sympathetic to returned soldiers applying for loans under it. However, as regards small loans up to £250, I should think, without going into it too closely, that the Common-

wealth terms are equally advantageous, if not more advantageous than the present State terms. However, I should have to work it out to find exactly what it would be.

With the Commonwealth coming into the picture and making financial arrangements with the State to provide money interest-free, the Commonwealth to pay the administration costs to the Agricultural Bank, the bank will be of greater advantage to returned servicemen than it is at the moment because its activities are limited by the fact that the State funds available to it-although very liberal up to the present time-are limited to a certain extent. Now with the Com· monwealth coming in the picture the State will have the advantage of the additional money provided by the Commonwealth to further assist soldiers in this State.

An interesting provision in regard to the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State is that the State is not to be liable for any loss that may be incurred. That does not mean that the State instrumentality has to be particularly free with the Commonwealth fund and to take unnecessary risks in regard to the calibre of the risk when making these advances. I do not think that will occur because the Agricultural Bank up to the present has been endeavouring to keep its valuations down to a reasonable level.

In fact, in some instances, I think it has gone very much on the conservative side. After all, perhaps if somebody does put a check on the advances made it may have a tendency at the moment to curb the dangerous inflationary movement that we see on all sides. Nevertheless, I think in some instances the Agricultural Bank could be a little more liberal with its valuations. I notice that the former Treasurer made arrangements with the Agricultural Bank whereby any returned soldier who desired to buy property could obtain a check valuation from an Agricultural Bank inspector in an endeavour to check the inflationary values of lands. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has any idea of how many soldiers have availed themselves of this opportunity to obtain check valuations and if, as a result of the check valuations made by the Agricultural Bank, any cases of undue inflation of land values have been discovered.

I do not propose to say any more at this stage, except that I hope that as a result of arrangements entered into between the Commonwealth and the State an advantage will accrue to those returned soldiers who desire to obtain financial assistance in order to enable them to engage in agricultural industries.

Mr. DECKER (Sandgate) (11.33 a.m.): At the opening of this session I mentioned the bungling and overlapping between ~he Commonwealth and the State that were taking place in the financing of soldiers. At that time I was assured by hon. memgers that I did not know what I was talking about, and that the schemes were entirely different, but this morning I learned from the Tr~surer 's remarks that just what I feared IS

Co-ordination of Rural, &c., [28 MARCH.) Bank Acts Amendt, Bill. ~Jol

about to take place. Apparently the State took the early and wise step of making provision to finance those returned men who desired to settle on the land; but we must remember that while we made those steps and put a limit of £5,000 on loans, with a security basis of 80 per cent. with favourable terms-interest-free for three years, suspension of payments for a further five years, and low-interest rate over the remaining period-we find that even before this sch~me was in existence any settler who had secunty, whether he was a returned soldier or not, had the opportunity of availing himself, through the agency of the Agricultural Bank, of loans up to £1,500. Now we find, under the guise of helping a particular section of soldiers, the Commonwealth is coming forward with a scheme for a maximum of £1,000 and conditions not nearly as favourable as those under the State scheme.

It is about time we got down to some sane basis of arranging finance for returned soldiers by dispensing with those schemes that are not adV3:!J.tageous and retaining those that are especially when both are operated through 'the one authority-the State Agricultural Bank. I say emphatically that the State scheme is the better scheme. The Treasurer now has an opportunity of bringing before us a copy of the information that the bank manager proposes to issue to returned soldiers showing the benefits of the Commonwealth scheme over any State scheme. It would be interesting to know how he can manage to persuade anyone that the Commonwealth scheme is going to give any advantage to the returned soldier beyond what he can get under our State scheme. Of course, there is the fact that if it can encourage returned soldiers to take advantage of small loans under the Commonwealth scheme, it will ease the call .on State funds, but I do not think we should consider that at all. Our paramount duty is to see that finance to settle returned soldiers on our land is properly given. If one scheme is more advantageous than another we should use it and scrap the other. One scheme could cover the whole field. It could contain special clauses granting special concessions under special conditions.

This multiplicity of financial schemes, each one supposed to be of special assistance to a particular section of soldiers, to my way of thinking is not meeting the position. It is only bungling and thus is prejudicial to their interests, and we should never have that state of affairs. I feel sure that whether the returned soldier was a settler on the land before he enlisted or not he is going to take advantage of what he can get now from the State Agricultural Bank under the State scheme. Let us be honest with ourselves. If our State scheme is best, let us use that, even if we have to go a little further and make provision for a reduction of interest. Let us give to the returned soldiers the best scheme and do not have this confusion between Commonwealth and State schemes.

I think the biggest objection to this scheme for settling soldiers on the land today is the valuations the bank experts place on the

properties. The valuations are out of touch, as it were, with present-day values. Over the war years farmers have had an excellent market and wonderful returns. Anyone buying or selling a farming property today takes into consideration those returns. When the Agricultural Bank inspectors make a valuation on 1942 values, what hope have we of getting settlement, even with an 80-per cent. advance from the bank f

Mr. Hilton: Do you believe in selling land at inflated values to the soldiers~

Mr. DECKER: No, I do not. There is no such thing as inflation. I think it i~ ~~e fair value having due regard to the posSlbihties of that farm, to the financial returns he may expect and a fair living standardwhether that farm will continue to produce and give a good living to the settler and give an opportunity for a man to make good after his war service. I think we have to be pretty broad in our views on the matter. In the first instance we should have regard to the value of the property-whether it is a first-class farming area, whether it is producing and whether it is likely to produce for a number of years and show a definite return to the soldier. We do not want to be niggardly in our valuations. We want to put our men into good ventures, not bad ventures, and help them all we can, particularly when we have nothing to offer to these men at present other than to help them buy farms privately. If we had a Cro'Y:t;·land. scheme operating at present the position might be different, but these men are restricted to private purchases, and v~ry often the va;luations placed on properties by the Agncultural Bank preclude them from attaining their desires. When it is found that private :financiers are willing to finance those men to get properties there must be something wrong with our methods. We are denying those men what private persons will do to assist them. The private :financiers take the risk. I think we should have a good State scheme, particularly when we look at the Commonwealth scheme, with its limit of £1,000. Why talk about free interest on a paltry £50 advance~ Despite the fact that they make a 90-per cent. advance it seems absurd and our State scheme seems far better.

Mr. Jones: It is not a settlement scheme. It is a rehabilitation scheme.

Mr. DECKER: Our Agricultural Bank scheme also is a rehabilitation scheme. The Minister cannot deny that we are confusing the issue. We should not be afraid to face the situation. Why should we be afraid to compare this Commonwealth scheme with our own~ If we cannot show that it is of advantage to the returned soldier we s~ould scrap it because we have enough power m our own State to give :finan~ial. ai~ on good. terms to our returned men, If 1t IS our des1re to do so. I ask the Treasurer to give serious consideration to that point of view and if this scheme is not as worthy as we think it is then scrap it altogether and let us work on a good State scheme, even if we have to alter our own Act to meet possible contingencies.

2152 Co-ordination of Rural, &:c., [ASSEMBLY.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill.

Mr. El>WARDS (Nanango) (11.41 a.m.) : I desire to say something on this motion about the development of our country. I quite agree with many of the statements made by the hon. member for Sandgate. In my own district, I was told on good authority that five applications recently were made to the Agricultural Bank, some of them by returned soldiers. All were turned down, but those people immediately got financial assistance from local private trading banks.

If we are to go on taking up time in passing this kind of legislation and making people believe that they have something to fall back upon and that they can get financial assista!!;Ce for land projects, whether they are returned soldiers or not, and they find it is impossible to get that financial assistance then their faith in this Parliament will be destroyed. It seems that it does not matter what is said in Parliament, that it is the board controlling the operations of the Agricultural Bank that decides whether an advance is to be made or not. If the board turns down an application for an advance all the applicant needs do is to go across the road and obtain it from a private banking institution.

llr. Devries: Do you know why their applications were refused f

Mr. EDW ARDS: The reason was that they were not considered suitable, yet they went across the road and got the necessary advance from the private bank.

Mr. Power: The private bank will get their properties in 12 months.

ltlr. EDWARDS: After all, this is a very serious question. I need hardly remind this Committee of the promises made during the war and since to our soldiers, and the emphasis laid on the need for the development of this State. Therefore, it is only fair that we should see that legislation of this kind is sympathetically administered by the Agricultural Bank. If we do not act sympathetically and generously what is the use of our passing this legislation 1 Intending settlers apparently have no trouble at the present time in getting accommodation from private banks. If the State allows the present position to drift a condition of affairs will arise as a result of which intending applicants will be advised by their agents and others not to bother seeking help from the State but go to private. banking institutions. That would get us into a bad position, not only with returned soldiers but with others.

Mr. Devries: You should see what the banking institutions have done in the pastoral areas.

ltlr. EDW ARDS: I do hope very sincerely that everything will be done to give intending settlers the necessary assistance they desire to establish themselves on the land. The State has its own officers in the various agricultural districts, who can always advise the bank how its clients are progressing an:l whether further help is likely to keep them on their blocks and further develop them in the interests of themselves and the State.

Mr. L. J. BARNES (Cairns) (11.45 a.m.) : I am of opinion that this legislation is a poor contribution to the rehabilitation of our

soldiers who fought in Greece and Crete and at El Alamein. The Federal Labour Government should do something worthy of those men. To me this legislation is nothing more nor less than a few crumbs from the caucus table. It is at best only giving our scldiers half a loaf, by reducing interest in certain cases to 2 per cent. to an applicant for a lc•an of £250.

Let us analyse what has been the policy of this Government and Federal Governments in reference to this class of legislation. All I can say is that if the Government are going to adopt this type of new order, then God help our soldiers. I believe in something similar to what Mr. Colin Clark, the Director of the Bureau of Industry, had to say recently in reference to J. P. Kelly's work on ''Modern Practices of Interest-taking.'' He said that any interest on loans, bank deposits, Government bonds, mortgages and outstanding accounts, is an offenc~ agaii;st moralit:y. Mr. Clark is the economic adviser to this Government and that is what he has to say about loans of this kind. I will qualify that statement by saying that profits or dividends from shares are not objected to if the lender shares the risks and receives no return if the venture is unprofitable. In other words, we. know that interest as practised today has been sucking the nation's life-blood for years past. For those who believe economics causes wars then the greatest contributor is usury interest. We here in the year of our Lord 1946 are bringing down a measure that is the same old Rothschild measure they had 100 years ago. The old saying, ''Permit me to control the nation's credit and I care not who makes its laws'' still applies. It makes no difference who makes the laws of a country if some monopolist has power to create an issue of credit.

We are in a position at the present time to see that the children of today are not the soldiers of tomorrow. A measure like this is a sham and a delusion. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition as far as the Agricultural Bank Acts are concerned; the little provision this measure includes of giving £50 interest-free is a small t~ken to these men who have fought and dwd for their country. The State, as the Minister pointed out, will have no liability for the debt and likewise no liabilitv for the cost of administration. Every bit' of this money should be free of interest to this State. This is purely a Federal matter and if the Commonwealth Government did the thing the correct way they would allow the Government to issue this money. I believe they have been reasonably generous in suggesting that they will lend up to 90 per cent. of one's assets. We should hnve had that' 50 years ago, but unfortunately we only find it coming down now. With that part of the Bill I agree. Private banks 'n pre-war days lent only 50 or 60 per cent. nnd in a great many cases less than that. In 1q32 they were not so kind and reasonable.

Mr. Devries: Theodore suggested a fiduciary issue. What happened then f

Co-ordination of Rural, &:c., [28 MARCH.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2153

Mr. L. J. BARNES: It is not a matter of suggestion. The Federal Labour Govern· ment had been in power long enough to have adopted that suggestion.

Mr. Devries: They crucified Theodore.

Mr. L. J. BARNES: Never mind who crucified him. The Federal Labour Government had been long enough in power to have adopted the suggestion. You can talk of fiducia1·y issue or what you like.

. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member is getting a long way from the principle contained in the Bill.

Mr. L. J. BARNES: The hon. member for Gregory is trying to draw me off the track. I do not mind; I do not object to it. This money is available only to those who were employed in the rural industries. This Government have been talking of decentralisation: we must get the peoplB out of the cities, we must get them out to the rural areas; yet here they bring down legislation to restrict the young soldier who has been six years at the war and who was a barber before the war and who now wants to go on the land. They say to him, "Under this measure you !?annot have this £50 free, you cannot have the £250 at 2 12.er cent., £50 interest-free and you cannot have this £1,000 with £50 interest free and the remainder at 3~ per cent.'' Did you ever hear of such legislation from a Government who have cried from the hilltops that they are interested in decentralisation and that they want as mrm:v as possible to live on the land~ 'l'he'-' J'eople feel a call to the soil. The lad who was 18 when he enlisted has now reached the time when he feels he can make up his mind and he wants to go on thE' land. He went away to defend his country and when he comes back he is absolutely debarred by this Government from sharing in the benefits of this legislation.• He is prohibited from going on the land. In other words, the Government are giving only lip-service to decentralisation. ''Go ye into the city,'' they say. "Get hack into a barber's shop or get on a taxi rank.'' Yet we know that not onlv does the rural producer produce the eggs and milk and honey but he produced a greater percentage of the soldiers for this war than any other class. The birth rate in the rural areas is 4.7 and the birth rate in the urban areas is 2. something. Here we are bringing forward this sort of legislation while we are talking about wanting 20,000,000 people in this country. In Newcastle in 1938 more people were put in coffins than babies were put in the cradle. Here is further legislation debarring people from going on the land. Did you ever hear the likes of it~

~Ir. Jones: This is not debarring anyone; this is to help someone already on the land.

li'Ir. L. J. BARNES: I am well aware of that. It is impossible for any soldier who was an urban worker before the war to change his occupation nnd share in the benefitc: of this legislation.

Mr. Jones: He comes in under another scheme.

Mr. L. J. BARNES: I am acquainted with that-£250 free of interest under your land scheme.

Mr. Jones: It is much more generous.

Mr. L. J. BARNES: I know how generous it is.

Mr. Jones: You have not seen it.

Itlr. L. J. BARNES: It is as generous as the loan of £5,000 by the Agricultural Bank with up to 35 years to pay it off. That was a good way for the Treasurer to put out money when he is only getting 2 per cent. There is no generosity in that. The Government owe it to the service men and women to see that as many as possible can be settled on the land, and believing myself to be a Labour man I am ashamed to find a Federal Labour Government bringing forward legislation of this kind.

Mr. BRAND (Isis) (11.55 a.m.) : Whilst I realise that the Treasurer may have some obligation to the Federal Government to bring down this measure, his submission is in fact an insult to the Queensland Parliament, which has recognised its responsibility for helping returned soldiers in settlement on the land. We know that the obligation is on the Commonwealth Government to settle these soldiers. Last year this Parliament passed an Act for the purpose of helping returned soldiers settle on the land, the Act being made effective as from 25 October last, nearly six months before the Federal Government do anything in the way of help to be rendered to these men going on the land. It is interesting to contrast the provisions of this proposal with those of the Act passed by the Queensland Parliament at the instance of the Queensland Government. The conditions of the Commonwealth statute cannot be compared to the offer made by the State from the point of view of liberality, beyond an advance of £50 free of interest. I am surprised that more favourable terms were not given by the Commonwealth Government to returned men.

I believe the Treasurer when introducing this Bill this morning gave the Committee a full explanation of its contents. He went to considerable trouble to tell hon. members the terms and conditions of loans. He told us that Commonwealth loans would be interestfree for the first £50, that the interest would be 2 per cent. on the next £200, and 3£ per cent. interest on the next £750. Averaging that percentage, we find that the Commonwealth scheme is not to be compared with the State scheme in respect of an advance of more than £500. Furthermore, the Sta'te scheme gave an advantage to a man going on the land inasmuch as it provided that the loan for the first three years would be interestfree, and for the next five years subject to the interest payment only. That is the period in which the soldier will be re-establishing himself in the industry.

li'I:r. Devries: On a land-settlement scheme.

2154 Oo-ordinaJ;ion of Rwral, &:c., [ASSEMBLY.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. gentleman should know that already under t:llat scheme soldiers have applied for and received very large advances to settle on ready-made farms. My experience has . been that the Agricultural Bank has been fairly liberal and has adopted the just and right attitude, but I join with other members in a protest-which I think will be taken notice of-that was made by a deputation of returned soldiers at Bundaberg to the Acting Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. F. M. Forde, when it was stated that the bank was turning down appl.iicaiiions that were. being taken up by private banks.

M:r. Devries: There is a reason for that, too.

Mr. BRAND: If that is so, our Agricultural Bank may be doing something that is not fair to the value of the land. That is all I can say about it. The fact that private banks grant applications for advances by soldiers that the Agricultural Bank will not take would indicate to me that we have not been quite fair in the valuations of the land offered as security.

Mr. Devries: It would be a decent story if it was told, too.

Mr. BRAND: If there is a different story it should be told, and the Agricultural Bank should have a reply to it. My trouble is that this matter went to the Acting Prime Minister and his attitude is indicated by the Bill we are discussing this morning in that it is not nearly as sympathetic to the returned soldier as is our Queensland scheme.

Mr. Power: Is that your Senate speech?

Mr. BRAND: The hon. member seeks to be facetious. So far as he is concerned, let me say--

lUr. Power: I am not a candidate.

Mr. BRAND: In any case, the hon. member would have no hope of being elected.

The Treasurer has stated that this is complementary legislation, and that is one good thing. It provides one small advantage over the State scheme in that advances will be made up to 90 per cent. of the value of the security offered, but I believe that if our State officers make a fair valuation our returned men will receive an advantage under the State scheme even though the maximum loan may be only 80 per cent. of the security offered.

At 12.3 p.m., Mr. DEVRIES (Gregory) relieved the

Chairman in the chair.

Mr. BRAND: Only a few days ago it was stated in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition that 640 soldiers applied for the benefits of the State scheme, which was only introduced on 25 October last year. Of those 640 applicants 24(\ were successful, the total amount of their advances being £290,000. Up to that time 198 applications had been rejected and 202 were still in abeyance. Up to date the individual advance was approximately £1,500 per settler, and, taking it by

and large, our State scheme is the better one and I intend advising returned soldiers to make application for loans under the State scheme if they desire an advance of anything over £50.

I hope the Commonwealth Government will recognise that they should at least do as much for the returned soldier as the State Government have shown they are willing to do. At the moment the Commonwealth scheme is not as advantageous as ours and I hope that when it becomes law the Minister will do what he suggested he would do in answer to an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition this morning-take immediate steps to have printed a booklet showing the advantages of both schemes so that returned soldiers will know which scheme will be more advantageous to them.

Mr. MciNTYRE (Cunningham) (12.5 p.m.): I should like to compliment the State Government on the fact that they have seen fit to make the Agricultural Bank available as the medium through which Commonwealth assistance may be extended to our returned soldiers. I think that this Act deals with a good scheme. I believe there are certain features associated with these Commonwealth loans to soldiers that are very commendable. As one who has had some experience with overdrafts and mortgages, I think it is a fine thing that when a soldier desires to settle on the land and he has availed himself of all the aid he can possibly get under the State scheme he can supplement his income by an added loan from the Commonwealth. One of the most commendable things about the scheme is that the Commonwealth Government are willing to accept a second mortgage. I understand that is a thing that has always been guarded against by the Agricultural Bank. I have known many primary producers, uarticularly in the initial stages, who either failed or were a partial failure because they had been cramped for the necessary finance to equip thei~ holding proper~y in order to give them maximum efficiency m production. It is pleasing to know that farilities will be available for the producer to finance himself adequately by way of a Ferond mortgage. The institution that accepts the second mortgage is taking the mn.im· part of the risk.

I think it is advisable and I think thP l\finister would be well advised to consi<l 0r

seriously the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to make availahlP to our soldiers a booklet setting out all information about these schemes. I move about amongst returned men and I lwvP found that among those who are desirous of getting on the land there is great difficulty because of the multiplicity of schemes. They seem to have a vague knowledge of where to go and how to set about getting the help they require.

As to the practical expression of our desire to help returned men to get on the land I find one of the greatest difficulties is that there is no co-ordination or collaboration between the ·mluers of the Agricultural Bank and the Federal Sub-Treasury valuers. In eur betterclass areas. we find quite a lot of land has

Go ordination of Rural, &Jc., [28 MARCH.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2155

been frozen for soldie-r settlement. Only a limited amount of land is available for straight-out sale. Soldiers everywhere, and particularly in my area, are very eager to get land. 'l'hey have a limited amount of capital, saved as the result of their war effort. They want to go to the Agricultural Bank to obtain advances to enable them to buy propertie.,. What happens~ 'l'he Agricultural Bank valuers go out and submit an adverse report because of the prices being asked for those farms, yet the Sub-Treasury approvrs of the sales. The Sub-Treasury is an organisation set up to control land values and to prevent inflationary values from operating. I think the Agricultural Bank valuers should work on a similar basis to the Sub-Treasury valuers. Because the two authorities do not operate on a similar basis, soldiers who want to get on the land are deprived of the opportunity to get sufficient money to finance their purchase of the land. The result is that many of the trading banks are financing the buying of those farms and the soldiers are not getting a chance. I say they must either get those good farms or no farms at all. Something should be done to bring about an equitable basis of valuations so that our soldiers will be able to get from the Agricultural Bank the same rights as others.

I think the Agricultural Bank valuers are too pessimistic about the prospects in primary production. Those with a knowledge of world :food shortages and the price trend are now making the statement that it will be some years before we catch up with our production, and I think we are justified in nssuming that dming that period the r~turned-soldier producer will be able to make good. particularly the soldier who kno-ws his job. I have always emphasised that man is more important than money, but if he is to succeed provision must be made for helping him financially. We must give a reasonable measure of help if we want men to go on the land and avail themselves of the four or five years of prosperity that will prohably prevail in primary production and enable them to estn hlish themselves and achieve financial stability. If not, what is happening today will continue, that is, men who have failed to go to the war and have consolidated their financial position by financing themselves through ordinary banking channels will be able to buy in at valuations approved by the Sub-Treasury Department, while soldiers will be deharred by the Agricultural Bank from obtaining advances because of the conservative basis established by the bank's valuators. T suggest to the Treasurer that when this Bill becomes law we should see that the StAte helns them adeqnately, ann if necessarY thev get annerl assistance from the tiommonwealth on a second mortgag-e. We shonln nt least liberalise our valnations nnd make thC'm comparn hle to th0 present values. If we ilo. T wm satisfien that our solilier settlerq will be nhle to eqtRhl;sh thems"lvf's oYer a rrasonnblp rwrioi! of vears.

!Ir. PIE {Windsor) (12.13 p.m.) : This ]Pf!l'lation no-ain proves that the Stn+f' cpr1

rommonwealth Governme·nts are overlapping

in all legislation for the rehabilitation .of servicemen. We find the same overlapping in the employment of labour through the National Service Office. Can the Minister tell me whether similar legislation to this now before the Committee is being introduced. throughout the States of Australia~

:Mr. Larcombe: Yes. Mr. PIE: On exactly the same basis? Mr. Larcombe: Yes.

Mr. PIE: The Bill being introduced,.now will be introduced into every State throughout Australia W

Mr. Larcombe: I presume so. Mr. PIE: The hon. gentleman is not

certain.

Mr. Larcombe: No; but I believe and presume so.

Mr. PIE: There is an agreement between the Commonwealth and States that was arrived at at the Premiers' Conference that this legislation will be introduced by aU States in Australia~

Mr. Larcombe: I am not certain of that.

:Mr. PIE: That is the point. I ask the Minister if he will find that out from the Premier.

Mr. Larcombe: I will.

Mr. PIE: Some States may not introduce uniform legislation. They may put up anothrr proposal that will be more advantageous, and thus obtain an advantage over Queensland.

Mr. Larcombe: No, the State law would be too late now, as the Commonwealth law has been enacted.

Mr. PIE: Apparently this is going to be uniform legislation.

Mr. Larcombe: I presume so.

Mr. PIE: I think from an examination of the measure that the Minister has intra· duced it on the wrong leg. This legislation has for its object the rehabilitation of servicemen who have been previously engaged in business or land practice. They may not have had experience but may havr previously been engaged in it. When they return they can get an advance up to £1,00tl to rehabilitate themselves W

Mr. Larcombe: Yes.

Mr. PIE: We did not gather that from the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Larcombe: Oh yes.

Mr. PIE: I gathered from him that any person who had had experience-he may hav<' worked on a property-would be eligible under this scheme.

Mr. Larcombe': The Bill has yet to he presented and the second reading taken.

Mr. PIE: The hon. gentleman made it quite clear that any person who had previous experience immediately prior to the war would be eligible under the scheme.


Mr. Larcombe: I said " any eligible person under the Act.''

Mr. PIE: I may be wrong. Mr. Larcombe: Any eligible person.

.M!· PIE: This is the point: who is an €hg1ble person~ I take it from my knowIedge of the Bill that the eligible person would be one who previously had a poultry farm, a motor-car business or a hairdressing saloon.

Mr. Larcombe: This does not deal with hairdressers.

Mr. PIE: Are you sure of that? Mr. Larcombe: Yes.

Mr. PIE: That is the point I want to :raise.

Mr. Larcombe: They can get assistance for hairdressing but not under this scheme.

Mr. PIE: Apparently only those persons previously engaged in a particular industry such as poultry farming are entitled to assistance under this Commonwealth Act.

Mr. Larcombe: Subject to the definition in the Act. .

Mr. PIE: Not those persons who have had previous experience~

llir. Larcombe: l\'ot all persons who have had previous experience.

Mr. PIE: We are getting more and more ronfused. The point I want to clear up is: ~re persons who have had previous experience m poultry farming but not necessarily in lmsinl'ss, eligible for an advance under· thh Act, or are actual poultry farmers who previously had their own businesses eligible T

Mr. Larcombe: Those who were owners, share-fanners or under contract, but not every person.

Mr. Nicklin: If you were a poultry farmer before the war, you could not get 11 loa·n to go dairying after the war~

lUr. Larcombe: To go back to the particular business you were in before you went to the war.

~Ir. Nicklin interjected.

Mr. Larcombe: "Similar "-there is elasticity there.

Mr. PIE: I do wish the Minister would make clear who is eligible because it is not dear at present. On the question of an advance I take it the Minister said this was ~omplementary to the State scheme; that is, 1f a man under the State scheme got an advance for £5,000--

Mr. Larcombe: It is complementary 1vithin the limitations of the Act and the maximum amount is £1,000. '

Mr. PIE: There is an advance up to £5,000 under the State Act, and up to 80 per cent. of the value of the property. Under this Bill, which the Minister says is complementary, can lie get another £500 'to hl·ing him up to the 90 per cent. of the >alue, under a second mortgage~

Mr. Larcombe: It will be all explained on the second reading.

Mr. PIE: I want it explained now. On the second reading we cannot make suggestions to the hon. gentleman as to the framing of the Bill.

Mr. Larcombe: It would be most unusual if you did not.

Mr. PIE: I am of opinion that the introduction of these schemes-the State trying to work in with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth trying to work in with the State-is only creating confusion in the minds of the people. The State should be responsible for the rehabilitation of its servicemen under grants from the Commonwealth Government. Who is better qualified to deal with the problems of the State than the State GovernmenU Why have the Commonwealth Government interfered in these matters~ Would it not be better for the Commonwealth Government to say, ''We are giving Queensland £100,000 for rehabilitation purposes under this scheme, and we are giving Victoria £200,000 and South Australia £500,000 "~

Would it not be better for the Commonwealth Government to say, ''Here is the money for this purpose,'' instead of bringing in a Commonwealth Act that is merely confusing the minds of the people~ That is the main difficulty with rehabilitation todayno-one knows where he is. You go from one department to another and each one passes the buck. You go from the Commonwealth to the State and from the State back to the Commonwealth, and by the time you have finished you say, "I will not have anything to do with this scheme.'' I have men coming to me every day who are completely confused as to where they stand, and I am sure every member of the Government has had the same experience. The thing has to come to an end sooner or later. The Commonwealth Government are playing a game for political purposes with the next election in view. After the next Commonwealth election you will find that the Commonwealth Government will give these powers to the States and say, ''Get out of your own trouble.''

It is apparent that the State Government have been actually forced to introduce this scheme. They do not like it. They know as well as we do that the State scheme is far better than the Federal scheme that is being introduced. Knowing that, why have they not the strength to stand up to the Commonwealth Government and say, ''Why confuse the issue~ Why bring in a scheme that is nowhere near as good as ours~ Why not leave the field to us~" I am sure that in relation to housing the Secretary for Public Works would support that thought. We should say, ''Leave it to the State Government and we will do something about it.'' This interference for the purposes of political propaganda will serve no good purpose for the people of Queensland.

I have nothing more to say other than to condemn the Bill because it is not necessary and iB not as good as the Act that is operating in this State today.

Go-ordination of Rural, &:c., [28 MARCH.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2157

Hon. J. LARCOMBE (RockhamptonTreasurer) ( 12.23 p.m.) : I am astonished that the hon. member for Windsor should say that he is opposed to this measure. Any little assistance to the returned man, no matter how small it may be, should be welcomed, not opposed. I am also astonished that the hon. member should say that the Federal Government have introduced this measure for party-political reasons. I might reply that his speech was nothing but political propaganda attacking the Federal Government. We know that a Federal election is to be held shortly and a good deal of political propaganda is being indulged in. Of course, I was pleased to hear the commendation of the State legislation and of what has been done under the State Act.

The confusion about which the hon. member for Windsor has spoken is created largely in his own mind because of political bias and because of an attempt to score off the Federal Government. Viewing the matter with a little common sense and understanding, we :find that very little confusion has existed up to the present time. Generous assistance has already been granted to many ex-servicemen under the State Act without any confusion, without any undue worry and without any serious complaints, and that state of affairs can be continued. A good deal of the criticism of the Act has been based upon false premises or upon a lack of knowledge of the real purposes of the Act passed by the Commonwealth Government. I pointed out in my opening remarks that this is only a part of the rehabilitation scheme that the Federal Government have introduced and made law. In addition to the aid that may be obtained by returned soldiers under this part of the Act, the hairdresser who was mentioned by the hon. member for Windsor and other tradesmen can obtain advances.

We are not discussing that particular part of the Act at present. The hon. member emphasised the Commonwealth's Act for rehabilitation. It applies generally, not only to those in agricultural occupations but to those engaged in occupations in the city.

Mr. Pie: In all occupations? Mr. LARCOMBE: Widely.

1\Ir. L. J. Barnes: You admit that this is stopping them from becoming agriculturists~

Mr. LARCOMBE: I do not admit anything of the kind. That is absolutely incorrect. It does not stop one. It will give to several the opportunity to get advances that perhaps have not borrowed under the State Act.

It is asked: why is the Act not more generous from the viewpoint of the Commonwealth W

The answer is, for the simple reason that the Commonwealth knew of our legislation or

intending legislation. It knew that we intended introducing legislation that would give to the returned men the right to obtain an advance up to a maximum of £5,000 and not limited to those engaged in agricultural operations.

Mr. Edwards: You cannot get it when you apply for it.

Mr. LARCOMBE: Under reasonable conditions he is getting it. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Isis were fair enough to admit that. Since the Act came into operation £290,000 has been advanced during the current :financial year to returned men. The Federal Government, knowing that we were passing an Act with a maximum advance of £5,000 and providing a period of three years free of interest and in certain instances a redemption-free period for :five years, would not want to duplicate.

Mr. Brand: They want to ride on your back.

Mr. LARCOMBE: No. The general legislation dealing with the tradesmen, the hairdresser and the others, included also the returned men who were on the land before they went to the war, and rightly so. This measure is supplemental but in no w:q interferes with the State legislation, which it is admitted is a generous and wise provision and the Commonwealth Government, knowing that, did not want to duplicate the State legislation. The Commonwealth Government have advanced and are advancing generous funds to the State for the purpose of solving the important problem of rehabilitating returned men. We have coming on shortly a land -settlement scheme dealing with returned men which is further supplemental.

Mr. Pie: State or Commonwealth?

Mr. LARCOMBE: It will be a State scheme. The Federal Government have control of the funds and they are helping the States generously in the provision of the fund to implement the scheme passed by the State. We could go on arguing everlastingly about the action of the Federal Government in relation to returned men-whether they are sympathetic or unsympathetic-but this fact stands out with monumental prominence: whenever returned men get an opportunity they vote for Federal Labour candidates and State Labour candidates. The reasonable inference, I think, is that they have been and are being fairly treated by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Pie: You say all the soldiers voted. for the Labour Government~

Mr. LARCOMBE: Yes, generally speaking.

Mr. Pie: Where did you get that?

Mr. LARCOMBE: From the election results. We got it at the by-election for East Toowoomba. When the votes were counted separately by the Commonwealth Government the votes that came from the :fighting front showed a big majority for Labour candidates. It is quite obvious that civilians and soldiers alike combine. There is only one isolated instance of a non-Labour Government in the Commonwealth, in South Australia, and they are tumbling to their doom. Why, in the heart of the Empire a Labour Government were returned at the time of the political revolution a few months ago,


Mr. BRAND (Isis) (12.30 p.m.): I take it the Minister rose to explain who would be eligible under this Bill, but he resumed his seat without telling us. Evidently, he was rattled because some hon. members have endeavoured to show that the Commonwealth Government have not been as sympathetic as the State Government towards the returned soldier, and whilst he applauds hon. members for recognising that fact, he has endeavoured to make political capital out of the issue. I assure him emphatically that we on this side are concerned only about the returned soldier. At all times, we give credit where it is due but in all seriousness I ask I1im how, after the explanation he has given, we can recommend to returned soldiers that they should accept the scheme he is pla'cing before us this morning in preference to the llne passed by the State in 1945 W

Mr. Larcombe: Not in preference. Let them choose for themselves.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. gentleman has confused the issue. When a measure is introduced in Committee we can only judge the proposed provisions on the explanation given by the Minister, and I ask any hon. member of this Chamber who has heard the Minister's explanation this morning whether he can tell me who will be eligible under the scheme. At one time, the Minister would say that a·n employee who worked on a farm prior to enlisting and who was an excellent agriculturist will be eligible under the scheme. At another stage he led us to believe that the employees would be able to come under it.

Mr. Larcombe: We cannot alter the J<'ederal Act.

Mr. BRAND: Then I take it the hon. gentleman must have an agreement about this.

~Ir. Larcombe: Yes.

lllr. BRAND: He said a while ago that he did not have an agreement.

Mr. Pie: Is it an agreement with all the States f

Mr. Larcombe: It will be with this Bill.

Mr. BRAND: Could an employee who was working on a cane farm prior to enlistment :and who was recognised as an excellent cane farmer make application under this BilH

Mr. Larcombe: He could make application.

Mr. BRAND: Would he be eligible for :an advance~

Mr. Larcombe: When you have finished I will tell you.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. member for Windsor asked the Minister that question. Surely it is not proposed that we shall have a Commonwealth Act complementary to our mvn legislation that will not provide for the employees, who after all fought in this war like everybody else and are entitled to the privileges accorded to other people.

A few moments ago the Minister told us that this legislation will confer a benefit on many returned men who are seeking to be rehabilitated in industry. I hope it does, but he has not explained how it will do that. I should like to know just how they will be benefited and who will be eligible for advances.

Mr. MAHER (West Moreton) (12.35 p.m.): While I appreciate the good intention at the back of the legislation to help in the rehabilitation of returned servicemen on the part of both Federal and State Governments, as things stand the legislation that has been introduced by the State Government to help the returned servicemen to acquire land is far and above that which is set out in the measure being introduced this morning by the Minister implementing an agreement with the Federal Government in relation to the Agricultural Bank.

It is a pity that there could not be some amalgamation of the conditions governing the benefits to returned servicemen. The Federal and State loans should be on a uniform basis, with one set of conditions applicable to all. If you were to take the £5,000 maximum advance under the State law and the £1,000 maximum advance under the Federal legislation now before this Committee and make a total advance of £6,000, setting up conditions to suit the smaller borrowers of £50, £100 and £500, it would be worth while. If we were to make available to returned servicemen a sum up to a maximum of £6,000, with conditions at least as liberal as those provided for under the existing State Act, we should be doing some good. I think it would be a statesmanlike act on the part of the Queensland Minister if he were to take the matter up with the Federal authorities on the basis of bringing about a joint scheme under which all could borrow on a uniform basis and obtain uniform benefits in rates of interest and general conditions. I think that is what should be done. Instead of confusing the minds of returned servicemen with two different schemes having different rates of interest and varying terms and conditions in respect of the loans I suggest to the Minister that he should endeavour to have a joint scheme.

Dealing with the broader principle, I cannot help feeling that when it comes to providing funds by way of loans to assist our returned servicemen to acquire land or enter into industry the terms and conditions should be far more liberal than any I have seen in the Federal or State Government schemes. I feel that when a man has gone abroad, offered his life in the service of his country and in so doing helped to keep a roof over our heads here and to maintain industry in which capital is invested, the least this country, rich in wealth production and with a limited population, can do is to make a better gesture than is contained in the legislation which I have so far seen. When we consider what the strong arm, the stout heart and the bravery of our Australian soldier have accomplished I think it would not be too much to suggest that money should be

Go-ordination of Rural, &c., (28 MARCH.} Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2159

made available free of interest to those who wish. to acquire land or enter into business. The money should be made available over a long period. We should give those boys an opportunity to make good, We should not burden them with debt at the commencement. Nothing distresses a man, worries him or breaks him down more than the fact that he is battling against heavy odds in bank interest and the reduction of principal. It may be all right for the ordinary citizen to have to undertake those obligations, but surely it is not too much to suggest that the man who has fought for his country and enabled us to live in this country should get the money free of interest. Those poor fellows who come along after having given four or five years of their lives fighting on foreign battlefields under most terrible conditions should be given, say, up to £5,000 free of interest for 25 years, only the principal to be redeemed, this money to be used to pur· chase land and stock or approved business undertakings. I think we have been simply fiddling with the question and not doing justice to the men who deserve so much from us in that respect.

I am certain that there are many people in this community today who, if a special loan was issued under the auspices of the Commonwealth Bank, earmarked specifically for the rehabilitation of returning servicemen, if they were certain it would not be used on wild-cat socialistic schemes, would be willing to contribute to that loan free of interest. There are others who would be willing to accept a very small rate of interest, say H to 2 per cent.

The Commonwealth recognises, and so does the State, that it will be necessary to make concessions to returned men at some time or other during the period of rehabilitation. Provision is made. under the land-settlement scheme proposed by the Secretary for Public Lands for a certain eventuality as it is recognised that it will be necessary at some time or other to give a rebate or some concession to the men because of their inability to cal'l'y out their obligations. We know that the value of land is being fixed on what is called the economic basis. The price the Department of Public Lands will have to pay through compensation boards to acquire the land is the market value at 1942, but there is what is called the economic value, the value the returned serviceman can produce profitably on the capital invested. There is the difference, the difference between the market value of 1942 and the economic price. The Commonwealth recognises that such a distinction exists, and is willing at some time or other, when the soldiers acquire the land under the land-settlement scheme, to make concessions. Is it not better to be generous at the beginning instead of being niggardly, and lift the burden of debt off the shoulders of the returned men and let them succeed because they are free from the burden of interest and recurring debt to the Crown~

This is an important matter that strikes at the heart of every man who comes back from the war. It is up to us to do the job properly and establish these men in industry

by making advances in accordance with their security, thus making it possible for them to get finance free of interest. I ask the Minister to consider that matter very carefully. What is a few pounds' What did we: write off soldier settlements after the last war~ Millions of pounds were written off by commissions appointed to investigate the failure of soldier land-settlement schemes after the last war. Why did they fain Because they were basically wrong in the beginning. This country was ungenerous to the men who fought, and who on returning here were ill-equipped, through their sufferings and war, to battle through. That is what we have to face: up to-whether it is better to cut the loss in the beginning or to cut the loss after the men have failed and after they have broken their hearts and spirit in the process. This country has to face up to losses in respect of soldier settlements, either at the beginning or ending. Is it better to do it generously and graciously at the beginning, or at the ending after the spirit of returned soldiers has been broken, and after they have become dis· gruntled and dissatisfied~ We must remember that these are the men who fought to preserve this country. I ask every hon. member in this Committee to search his heart and take unto himself what these boys have been through, not to be niggardly, and to get them properly established in civil life in the days to come.

Mr. DECKER (Sandgate) (12.45 p.m.): I feel sym}Jathetic with the Minister who has to put this Bill through the Chamber in its initial stages without having a real grip of it. It is a pity we have had such conflicting opinions expressed from the Minister in regard to certain benefits that this Bill proposes to confer on certain soldier settlers. If the Minister can show us how one

soldier can be settled under this scheme who cannot be settled under any existing scheme the Bill may be worth while; but I say definitely that there is not a soldier who could receive any advantage from the Bill who could not be settled unde.r our present schemes.

There is much talk about additional advantages. The red herring of second mortgages was dragged across the trail by the Premier on another debate. This measure lays down a limit of £1,000. If a person had security and wanted an extra advance and approached the Agricultural Bank for a further advance, if the bank would not advance the extra money under a second mortgage or the first mortgage, then I venture to say that there are any number of financial institutions that would do it. It is all a red herring drawn across the trail. I think we should be honourable men and examine any scheme advanced by the Commonwealth Government, but we should not make political capital out of it; we should judge it by the extent of the benefits it might confer on the ex-servicemen, and if they are nil we should reject it and continue with our own schemes.

Scheme No. 1 represented agricultural advances to settlers who may be private settlers or soldier settlers. Scheme No.


2 was to help returned men in land settlement. Then there is the Commonwealth Bank scheme, Scheme No. 3, and Commonwealth Bank Scheme No. 4. Where are we going to stop1 I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister. I think the Attorney-General could have handled the matter better because there are many legal points in it, which are beyond most members. How are we going to get returned soldiers interested in these schemes and let them know how they stand if the position is so confused 1 'l'he manager of the Agricultural Bank will be called upon to deal with a multiplicity of schemes, and when a soldier desires information he will advise him which scheme has the best advantage. If the bank manager is honest he will place before him the best scheme, and then the other schemes will become inoperative. Eve-ry soldier approachign the bank would be referred to the State rehabilitation scheme. There is no question about that, so then the others would become redundant. If that is so, why put a redundant Bill through the House~ 'l'he matter could be simplified if we ascertained the advantages of our Act, and if there are any weaknesses the powers could be increased in order to give a fair deal to every applicant. We should not be confusing the situation by introducing a Commonwealth Bill.

Mr. Collins: Would it not be better to see the Bill~

Mr. DECKER: According to the statements by the Minister, none of us will know what is in the Bill until we see it ourselves. I am satisfied that we are not going to get much information without it. When we get to the stage that the Minister introduces politics, it is wrong. It is all very well to say that the secrecy of the ballot has gone, as apparently it did in Toowoomba, according to the statement of the Minister. That is a matter for discussion at some later pclriod. It was a very serious statement to make in this Assembly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. DECKER: I know that matter is not within the scope of the Bill, but it is within the scope of the Minister's remarks.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. PIE (Windsor) (12.50 p.m.) : I have listened with considerable interest to this debate, particularly as seve·ral contentious matters were raised by the Minister. I should now like to know from the Minister whether this is a settling scheme or a rehabilitation scheme.

~fr. Larcombe: It deals with rehabilitation.

Mr. PI~: Therefore, it has nothing to do \Yith the settling of returned soldiers~

Mr. Larcombe: You cannot rehabilitate a soldier without having him settled, can you V

Mr. PIE: There is a vast difference betwer n rehabilitation and settling. ''Settling'' means settling in a new ventur& a man who has had previous experieuce.

This Bill, on the Minister's own admission a little while ago, is not meant to do that. It is meant to rehabilitate in a particular industry ex-servicemen men who were previously in that industry.

Mr. Larcombe: Who have had previous experience in the industry.

Mr. PIE: Does that mean, for instance, that if my father was a poultry farmer and I came back from the war and did not want to work for him but wanted to start on my own, I could get assistance~ I have had previous experience, but I have never actually owned a poultry farm before. Am I eligible under this scheme~

Mr. Larcombe: You will get that information on the second reading.

Mr. PIE: To be quite candid, I do not think the Minister knows. If he will admit that he does not know and wants to get further information that is all right with us, but I deprecate Ministers coming into this Assembly with half-baked schemes and not knowing what they are about.

Mr. Larcombe: You will get all that information at the proper time.

Mr. PIE : The Minister has said that this Bill is being brought into effect by agreement with the Commonwealth Government. Shall I get that information on the second reading~ Surely that means that every State must be bringing in a similar Bill by agreement with the Commonwealth Government~ I ask the Minister to let us know whether that is right. We do not know whether it is right or wrong.

Mr. Power: You will get that information in due course.

Mr. PIE: This business of getting things in due course, when it is too late to debate them, is not in the best interests of democracy and free debate in this Chamber.

We should like a clear statement from the Minister whether a man who gets an advance of, say, £3,000 under the State scheme--which is 80 per cent. of the value of his propertyis entitled under this scheme to get another £300 for the additional 10 per cent. security on a second mortgage. I want to know that before we leave the first-reading stage. It is too late to be informed of these things when the second-reading stage is reached. Is a man who gets £3,000 under the State scheme eligible for a further advance of £300, up to 90 per cent., on a second mortgage~

Mr. Macdonald: To the limit of his valuation~

ltir. PIE: To the limit of his valuation. We must know these things before we can let the Bill pass through this stage. When the matter comes before the Speaker it is too late to debate such matters, and we want to know where we stand.

Mr. BRAND (Isis) (12.54 p.m.) : The Minister in charge of this Bill is an old parliamentarian and he knows th.at at this stage of the Bill we are entitled to know its meaning and its implications. We have asked whether certain people are eligible for an advance under this Bill.

Co-ordination of Rural, &:c., [28 MARCH.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill. 2161

We ask whether the workers whG were in agricultural industry prior to their enlistment are able to obtain advances under this Bill. I want to know from the Minister whether workers in agricultural industry in Queensland who enlisted are to be denied the benefits that would accrue to them under this Bill' Surely we can expect an answer to a question such as thaU The Minister indicated at one stage that he was going to tell us, but he now states that he will tell us at the next reading. We are now at the stage where we are considering whether we should agree to the introduction of the Bill and all we get is another .Minister sitting on the front bench trying to help the Treasurer in his position by saying, ''Why don't you wait until you get the Bill~'' It has been the accepted practice in this Parliament down through the years that the Minister introducing a Bill gives a full explanation of the contents and, Mr. Devries, with all due respect, the Minister has not given us thnt information. We desire to know whether this Bill, which the hon. gentleman says is complementary to our own legislation pastied last year, will give the benefits that our own legislation gives. In some respects he has said, "No," but we don't know just who will be eligible. We make the plea to him to tell the Committee, when the Bill is being introduced, just who will be eligible to apply. After all, at this stage it is within the competence of this Committee not to allow the Bill to reach the first reading if, in the opinion of hon. members, it will be redundant and of no value to people to whom the Committee feels it should apply.

Mr. Power: You try to stop it going through and see how you will get on.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. member is compelled, whether he thinks so or not, to vote for it. His Minister only has to say that he has to vote for it and he has to do it. He is not independent and cannot do otherwise. It is evident that any questions that we ask this morning whether employee.s in industry will benefit the same as farmers in industry will not be answered.

Mr. Jones: Did you not read the Commonwealth one~ This is only .a ratification of the Commonwealth one.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. gentleman is coming to the aid of his colleague·. We are asking the Treasurer, the .Minister in charge of this measure. The Secretary for Public Lands understands that it is from the Minister in charge of the Bill that we expect answers. We do not expect answers from others. He is an old parliamentarian and is prone to use that weapon, usually used by members of the Labour Party when we want information; they are not going to give it to us.

Mr. l\IDLLER (Fassifern) (12.59 p.m.): I certainly will not vote for the initiation of this Bill unless the Minister is prepared to give us the information we should have. The Deputy Leader of the O-pposition asked him a straight question. He asked ''Is this proposal a separate one or must it work in conjunc-

tion with the State AcU I should like some information on that point. If it is to be a scheme in itself, its value will be little or nothing. As a matter of fact, I think it is a reflection on the intelligence of the returned soldier to say ''We will give you £50 for nothing.'' What can he do with £50 or even £250 when we know very little settlement today can be done with £1,000!· If this scheme is to work in conjunction with the State's scheme, and additional money is to be provided on second mortgage, it will have some benefit.

At 2.15 -p.m.,

The. CHAIRMAN resumed the chair.

1Ir. MULLER: I have asked the Minister whether the proposed Bill is to operate in conjunction with the State scheme or whether it will be entirely separate. Another thought that has occurred to me is that possibly a soldier will be entitled to ask for a second mortgage on his property under this scheme, even though the first mortgage may have been given to a private bank. I have no desire to oppose the initiation in any way but I should like to know what is intended. Is it proposed to accept a second mortgage from a soldier who has already given a first mortgage to a private bank, or must the whole of his dealings be with the Government scheme~

Much has been said about the rehabilitation of soldiers during this session and I feel that every hon. member is anxious to do everything possible to help the soldier, but we must remember what happened after the last war. The commission appointed to investigate what was done at that time reported that £45,000,000 should be written off as being the loss incurred in the settling of returned soldiers. This was the equivalent of about £1,100 per soldier. Although I realise that no matter what we do losses will be inevitable, I do urge that that fact does not give us a licence to waste money.

The proposal submitted by the State Government is a good one. The principle of granting interest concessions is certainly much better than merely handing a soldier a sum of money and telling him to do the best he can. Everyone of us should be expected to carry some responsibility in preventing soldiers from walking off properties at any time they wish. Above all, however, we must have a clear understanding of what is intended.

Recently the Press published the Commonwealth scheme but I have yet to meet a man who can tell me what is intended. The Press report suggests that the intention is to take a second mortgage on properties, but so far as I can see the scheme will be of little value to the soldier. After all, what is £50 or even £250 by itself~ Of course it might make all the difference if its purpose is to relieve a settler who has suffered loss through drought or other causes and if the Government intend to accept a second mortgage for this help.

The Minister could have sa'ved a Q:ood deal of time during the course of this debate

2162 Go-ordination of Rwral, &:c., [ASSEMBLY.] Bank Acts Amendt. Bill.

if he had told us clearly what was intended. Although we do not expect him to make a second-reading speech, we do feel that we are entitled to know what it is proposed to do.

Hon. J. LARCOM'RE (RockhamptonTreasurer) (2.20 p.m.): I should like to explain to hon. members that a certain method of procedure is set down for the discussion of Bills. yre a~e not discussing the Bill now. We. are discus.smg_ the desirability of introducmg a certam Bill. I have given members very generous information. I have taken a note of their comments and their questions which will be answered at the proper stage~ -the second reading and Committee stages. Might I say in reply to the hon. member who has just resumed. his seat, however, that it need not necessanly be a mortgage to the State bank that may be cleared under this AcH It does not matter whether the lender is a pri_vate len_d~r or a State bank. Applicants >nll be eligible to apply for clearing a mortgage nchether it is a private encumbrance or one with the State bank.

With all due deference and courtesy to hon. members, I say that the matters they have raised are matters for the second reading and Committee stages and they will be fully answered at the proper time.

ll~r. THEODORE (Herbert) (2.21 p.m.) : I wlSh to make a few remarks about the comments and criticisms levelled at the Minister in relation to ~his Bill. After hearing his speech and gettmg personal information from him I think I am right in saying that the purpose of this Bill is to assist returned servicemen who previously owned properties or businesses. In this case we are dealing with soldiers who prior to going to the- war to fight for their country had properties and returned ~o find that they had been neglected. If they Wish to return to their properties and re-establish themselves this Act will enable them to do so.

.:tlr. Brand: How do the workers come in~

])Ir. Pie: Do the workers come in at all?

Mr. THEODORE: There will be other methods of providing for workers.

Mr. Pie: Will there be more legislation?

])fr. THEODORE: Certain legislation has been passed for the specific purpose of enabling returned soldiers who seek employment to obtain that employment.

1\Ir. Pie: To settle on the land?

1\Ir. THEODORE: The principle of preference to returned soldiers has been recogniserl. Legislation has been passed for that purpose. We are now dealing with special c~ses. There are others. For instance it will not be long, I presume, before it ~ill b~ necessary to introduce legislation to proVIde for the settlement of returned soldiers in the sugar industry. That will follow the report 'lf the royal commission.

1h•. "Pit>: Sugar will be a separate Bill?

])fr. THEODORE: No, I say that perhaps we shall have to pass special legislation for that purpose. It will all depend upon the report of the commission.

Mr. Pie: It can come under this Bill.

Mr. THEODORE: It could come under this Bill.

])Ir. Brand: A sugar-worker will not be able to come under the Bill we are discussing.

Mr. THEODORE: A sugar-farmer who went off his farm to go to the war and has returned and found the farm neglected will be able to receive the benefits provided under this legislation. I know of cases where farms have been neglected.

Mr. Luckins: A new man could not come under it.

Mr. THEODORE: The £1,000 advance upon the terms and conditions provided in the Bill will be quite sufficient in numbers of cases to fully re-establish these men.

Mr. Brand: Do you think it is better than our legislation~

Mr. THEODORE: I do not think you can compare them, and I do not think it was intended that they should be compared.

Mr. Pie: Do you think this is necessary? Mr. THEODORE: It is something that

will augment legislation already agreed to. I do not think there is any need to condemn the purpose of this Bill. All I can discern in the discussion that has taken place is that members of the Opposition are attempting to attack the Government or put up a bogy. There is no doubt they are looking for some means of doing that. I believe that if any member of the Opposition can make any suggestion for the improvement of the Bill the Minister will listen to him.

Mr. Brand: He told us that he would not accept amendments .

Mr. THEODORE: If he can see any way of improving it I am sure he will do so, but I do not think that the Opposition-and up to this juncture they have not done socan submit anything to improve it. The arguments used against the Bill were quite unjustified. The Bill contains a very laudable object. It is quite: clear to anyone who understands its provisions that the returned soldier seeking assistance under its provisions will be adequately catered for. It will not be possible under it to help a large number of soldiers; I believe the number will be limited. Nevertheless, if it will afford anv help to any soldier we should accept it. If there is anything wrong with its provisions then this is the proper place to submit any suggestions to improve it. ·

Mr. PIE (Windsor) (2.26 p.m.): I will be very brief as I do not wish to delay the Committee. The more we hear from the Government benches the more confused ·we become. In fact, I have given up trying to get any information whatsoever. It is worse than trying to get assistance under the rehabilit2tion scheme.

Stock Returw Acts [28 MARCH.] Amendment Bill. 2163

There are several questions I should like to ask, namely, whether this Bill is being introduced in agreement with the Commolllwealth Government; whether it will operate the same in all States; whether all States have agreed to introduce such uniform legislation; whether it is a Bill to settle returned men or rehabilitate them; whether returned men, to be eligible for assistance, must previously have been the owners of properties engaged in an agricultural venture; whether a returned serviceman who had previous experience in a particular agricultural industry as an employee will be eligible; whether the scheme is complementary to the Commonwealth scheme; whether the Minister himself believes that it is absolutely necessary and a better scheme than the State's; whether if a returned soldier receives an advance under the State scheme and is settled on the land he will be eligible for assistance under the Commonwealth scheme, and whether he must have been previously an owner, not an employee, to obtain consideration~ Those are facts we are entitled to know on this introductory stage. If the Minister is not willing to give the information to us, we have to accept his word and wait till the second reading when it will be very difficult to discuss the Bill in i~s broad principles.

Mr. Larcombe: That will be the proper stage.

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

FIRST READING.

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

STOOK RETURNS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION.

Hon. J. LARCOMBE (RockhamptonTreasurer): I move-

'' That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the Stock Returns Acts, 1893 to 1942, in certain particulars. ' ' Motion agreed to.

INITI£TION IN COMMITTEE,

('rhe Chairman of Committees, Mr. Mann, Brisbane, in the chair.)

Hon. J. LARCOlUBE (RockhamptonTreasurer) (2.33 p.m.): I move-

'' That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to amend the Stock Returns Acts, 1893 to 1942, in certain varticulars.''

The chief object of the Bill is to provide again for the printing and publishing of the stock-returns list, which was suspended in 1942" under authority of the amendment of the Act for the period of the war and 12 months afterwards. During the intervening period the compilation of the list has been continued in manuscript and copies have been made available as far as possible to the Department

of Agriculture and Stock and the pastoral companies. The object of the suspension was to economise in paper and in man-power at a time when the stocks of paper were limited and staffs in the Public Service were depleted.

It is proposed to restore the printing and the publication of the list as from 1 January, 1946. This will be more convenient and satisfactory for the stockowners and also the Government departments. It is intended also to repeal section 2 of the principal Act and insert in lieu thereof a section that will be more coilvenient for the stockowners. 'rhe Act provides that the return to be made by the stockowner in each year shall be· presented to the clerk of petty sessions in his local-authority area. Prior to 1942 the owner had to make his return to the clerk of petty sessions in whose district his stock were depastured or kept. In 1942 the law was altered on the grounds that stockowners knew their local-authority areas better than the boundaries of the petty sessions districts.

The returns then had to be made to the clerk of petty sessions nearest the localauthority area in which the stock was depastured or kept. However, some confusion seems to have been caused by the word ''nearest.'' In some instances it was taken to mean a place outside the local-authority area. It is proposed now to alter the section so that returns shall be forwarded to the clerk of petty sessions nearest to the place where the stock are depastured or kept at the time the return is compiled. That will remove all doubt and ambiguity.

The amendment is intended solely to meet the convenience of stockowners. Representations in favour of the change have been made by various clerks of petty sessions and it is proposed to legislate a'ccordingly.

Mr. BRAND (Isis) (2.36 p.m.): The motion that has been moved by the Treasurer and the explanation made by him indicate quite clearly that it is desirable that this Bill should be brought down. From the information he has given us it is quite evident that Parliament would have no objection to this mea'sure. It would seem, now that the war is ove.r, that we are to return to the former practice of printing and publishing stock-return lists, which were of some value to stockowners generally, and in that respect we welcome the fact that we are now living in a period when our former practices can again be observed. It was quite right that the Government of the day should, and did, recognise their responsibility in regard to the conservation of paper and man-power, which was essential because of the war. In that respect I think the Queensland Government showed that they were earnest in their desire to help in every way. Possibly they showed their desire to a greater extent than any of the other States. In the other States there was not the same cheese-par!ing in saving the things that could help in winning the war as there was in Queensland. One had only to go to Canberra to learn that things readily available in peace-time were, if anything, more lavish in supply durin~< a period of war than previously. In Queens-

2164 Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Railways Acts Amendt. Bill.

land, however, a proper approach was made to the things that really mattered.

The repeal of section 2, which is ambiguous at present, as the Minister has said, indicates how careful we should be at all times in the passing of legislation. It seems quite absurd that this Parliament, with all the experts we have to advise us on legislation submitted to this Chamber, should be placed in the position of having later on to make a trivial alte.ration to make things clear to the people. I believe it has been the honest desire of all political parties of this Parliament, since I have been associated with it, to make the law as simple a's possible so that everyone will understand it. It would seem that the officers concerned have a good deal to learn in carrying out the wishes of political parties in that respect. Very often it has been found that amendments moved by the Opposition for political purposes have been unacceptable to the Government but have been found to be necessary later on, a'nd have been inserted in an Act by the same Government to express rlearly what is intended.

We hope that as this Bill goes through the Minister in charge, of it will be very careful to see that no further mistakes are made and that there will be no ambiguity. In doing that the Opposition will give ever~help and hope to ha've some reciprocity of good feeling from the Government in power.

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

FIRST READING.

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

RAILWAYS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. SECOND READING.

Hon. E. J. W ALSH (Mirani-Minister for Transport) (2.40 p.m.): I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

There is nothing much I can add to my remarks at the introductory stage of the Bill. I outlined to the Committee the general principles relating to the functions of the appeal board. There are just one or two other matters that may be interesting to mention at this stage.

It is intended that power should be taken to appoint general managers' in the four divisions of the State without any right of appeal against their a'ppointment; the desire being, of course, to allow a little more freedom than usual to the Commissioner and the Government to select those whom they regard as being most fitted for those positions. After all, the position of general manager is one that has some relation to the duties of a Commiesioner within his particula'r division. He may be described as a Junior Commissioner and consequently the Government have taken the view it would be wise to see, that in future these appointments are made from the most efficient employees within the service.

Mr. Brand: The Commissioner's recomwendation will be Tespected ~

Mr. W ALSH: I am not going to sugg~st that the hon. member should dictate the policy of the Government. After all, nobody can dictate to the Govemor in Council. The Governor in Council is supreme in all these matters a·nd generally speaking you might say that when recommendations of that kind arc submitted to the Government they are respected. At least I think it will be conceded that it is wise to have a little more freedom in the selection of the occupant of such an important office in the various divisions.

There· is another proposed amendment that I think might interest hon. members. I_t is proposed to repeal section 22A of the Railway Act, which provides for the imposition of what are known as stop-work fines. There is a provision whereby any employe.e who

leaves his work or absents himself from duty is automati<>ally subject to a penalty of £1. At least it must be said that the railway employees in recent years particularly have respected the importance of their position and have not absented themselves en masse, as it were, to attend what are known as stopwork meetings within working hours.

Since it is conceded that the Government might be generous enough to show a co-operative spirit and to trust the employees to honour their agreements and not to resort to what they have done in the past, the Government think it wise to repeal that section. I have no doubt the employees will do the right thing in the future, but, of course, there is power under the Railway Act in other sections for the Commissioner to charge any employee who is absent from duty witho~t leave. This provision is automatic and 1t was thought that there is no reason why it should remain in the Act.

The other amendments are minor amendments relating to the procedure adopted in appeals. An employee may make certain statements in reply to charges that have been levelled against him in the first place by the general manager or authorised officer, but it has been found that statements made in that way are not admissible as evidence before the subsequent hearing before the appeal board. The department takes the view that if in the first instance the employee is charged and evidence is submitted and if he is punished according to the evidence submitted, then, if he should appeal to the appeal board and make a different statement before that tribunal the department should have the right to bring before the boaTd the statement made hy the employee when he was charged in the first instance. I do not think there can be any argument against that, and we think that the evidence that has been given in the first place should be allowed to be brought before the appeal board to help that tribunal to come to a correct decision.

As a result of the amendment of the Water Acts in recent years, the Commissioner has been obliged to pay royalties on gravel that. he has removed from the beds of creeks and rivers for the maintcnm1ce of railway lines. :3 inee this is a matter of one department paying another Government department, it is

Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. [28 MARCH.] Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. 2165

intended to relieve the Commissioner of that obligation.

Other than that I do not think I can say anything further 'at this stage. I have already given an extensiv~ outline of the principles contained in the Bill.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) (2.48 p.m.): The Bill in question is largely a machinery measure and in the main contains concessions that are desirable, those relating to appeals' in particular. There are one or two smaller points, however, that are slightly contentious, points upon which the Minister did not touch very fully on either stage.

The first point to which I wish to make reference is the provision dealing with the repeal of section 24 of the principal Act, which enacts that no employee shafl be liable to dismissal or any disability, except a proportionate reduction of pay, for refusing, on conscientious grounds, to work on any Sunday except in cases of necessity. That provision has been included in the principal Act since it was first introduced, and it was included for a very special reason. There are certain persons in the community who have a definite conscientious objection to working on Sunday. I do not suppose there are many of them, and perhaps the Minister has instances in which this privilege has been abused, but I submit that if there are men or women in the railway service who have definite conscientious objections to working on Sunday there is no reason why those ·conscientious objections should not be observed by the Commissioner.

I do not suppose a great number of people would be involved and I should like to hear the Minister explain fully the reason why it should be necessary to repeal that provision. He may have instances in which that provision has been abused by certain employees and in his wisdom he has decided to abolish it, but just because it may have been abused on certain occasions that is no reason why those persons whom this provision was designed to protect should not continue to receive that protection.

Mr. Gair: Do you think a Seventh Day Adventist should receive penalty rates for working on Sunday when the Saturday is his Sabbath~

Mr. NICKLIN: No, I do not. Mr. Gair: Well, he does.

Mr. NICKLIN: That may be an anomaly that could be rectified. It could be quite easily rectified without abolishing this provision, which was inserted for a specific purpose.

The second provision that may be contentious and that the Minister has dismissed with a few words is the extension of the section to give the Commissioner for Railways the right to take 'lvithout payment therefor from any river, stream, or water or watercourse any sand, clay, stone, gravel, or other material. That may be all right if the creek or watercourse runs beneath the railway or on railway property.

Mr. Walsh: The Commissioner has that right now.

Mr. NICKLIN: Only in the case of water. This clause extends his right to sand, clay, stone, gravel and other materials. He has the right in regard to water only at present.

Mr. Walsh: He has the right to the other, too.

Mr. NICKLIN: I do not think so. Mr. Walsh: Yes.

Mr. NICKLIN: I think this new provision extends his right to sand, clay, stone, and gravel, and they were not mentioned in the principal Act.

Mr. Walsh: It relieves the Commissioner of the payment of royalties.

Mr. NICKLIN: Yes. It relieves him of the responsibility of paying for what he might take from those watercourses.

Mr. Walsh: That royalty goes to the Irrigation Deprotrtment.

Mr. NICKLIN: Not always. There are many instances where those watercourses run through private lands and the royalties can be and are collected by the owners of that land.

It also raises the question whether the Commissioner for Railways can enter any property and take from a river sand, elay, or gravel, as the case may be, to the detriment of the river bank and thereby cause erosion. Is the Commissioner subject to control in a similar way to the private landowner~ It is a very important matter. During the last few years various Bills have been passed to protect creek banks 11nd to prevent the undesirable erosion of our lands. It was only right that we should do so, but does this amending Bill give the Commissioner for Railways the right to take those things irrespective of whether it might result in danger to the creek bank and cause erosion~ Will it give him the right to enter and take sand, stone, or gravel without in any way coming under the control of the Department of Public Lands~

Mr. Walsh: This Act would not relieve him of any of the limitations imposed on him by the Water Acts.

Mr. NICKLIN: I am pleased to have the Minister's assurance, because it is a very important point, but I question that very much. We know that where the Commissioner is compelled to draw water from a stream for his locomotives he has p1·ior claim on that water. It is only right that he should have certain concessions but in some instances that concession is exercised to the detriment of other people who also are drawing water from those streams. If the Commissioner thinks there is any likelihood that his water supply will in any way be affected by those other users action is taken to prevent people from drawing or pumping water from it. We recognise that our trains must be kept going, but in some instances reason is not used in imposing bans on those other people


who may be using the same source of water supply. I hope that the Minister will look into that aspect of the matter to see that the rights of other people are protected and also that the rights of other people in connection with sand, gravel, and similar materials that may be taken from private land by the Commissioner are subject to the payment of royalties. This power that is now given to the Commissioner is not given to the Commissioner of Main Roads. He is a big user of sand, gravel, and other materials. If he enters a property to take those materials he must first make an agreement with the owner to pay royalty and also undertake to see that no damage is caused by the removal of these materials. Further, he has to comply with the other regulations laid down by the Sub-Department of Irrigation and Water Supply. The Commissioner for Railways also should have these same limitations imposed on him, otherwise he may be responsible for causing considerable damage to private land as a result of this arbitrary power and he may disadvantage some adjacent landholder. Under the present Act the Corn· missioner is liable to pay compensation for any actual damage so caused and also to pay rental for occupying that land, yet under this Bill he can take such materials without any payment. If private individuals are compelled to pay royalties why should not the Commissioner for Railways~ That is an important point and one the Minister should look into. At present it appears to be very clear that he is not liable to pay anything for materials so taken although his action may cause serious loss to the owner of the land. I am sure that is not intended by this House. I hope that in actual practice that will not be so.

As I mentioned at the outset, the liberalisation of the conditions under which employees may appeal seem in the main desirable. They will give the employees additional protection and additional conditions. Appeal is now being allowed against an appointment to a position notified as temporarily vacant in the Weekly Notice. This Bill also gives te!liporary employees after one month's serv1ee the right of appeal against punishment. That is a protection which a temporary employee is entitled. As I mentioned on the introductory stage, the department is going to employ a large number of temporary employees within the next few years.

These men may be employed for a considerable length of time and they are entitled to protection as far as the appeal provisions are concerned.

The extension of the right of appeal to employees of the railway refreshment rooms as employees of the Traffic Branch is also very desirable. These employees have done a great job and they are entitled to the liberalising of the conditions of their employment that it is proposed to give them under this Bill.

The other provisions dealing with appeals relate to the taking of evidence and giving the right of appeal to the employees to the Governor in Council. I am glad to seEl the latter provision included. Too often we find

in legislation in this House the right of appeal being taken away in legislation. In other instances where a right of appeal is inserted it is only an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. Under these provisions the employee who believes himself aggrieved may appeal to the Governor in Council. That certainly gives him a right to which he is justly entitled. I congratulate the Minister fo_r reinserting this provision in the Railways Act. I wonder why it has taken so long to put it back~

lUr. Walsh: I wonder why your party ever eliminated it~

Mr. NICKLIN: Perhaps the Minister can tell me; I do not know.

Mr. Walsh: It looks as though you voted against it.

Mr. NICKLIN: The hon. gentleman has been a mighty long time putting it back. The Minister is under a great handicap to make out a case why he did not put it back before this. It will be back when this Bill becomes law, and I am sure all hon. members will agree with its insertion in the Railways Acts.

There is no doubt the railways are facing one of the most critical periods of their existence; and in the next few years we shall see whether the Railway Department and the railways generally are going to give the service to this State that they should give and that they can give. The future of the railways will depend on the management and a close liaison between all sections of officers who have responsibility in the running and serviceing of the Railway Department. That being so, it is good to see inserted in the Bill a provision for closer liaison between the general manager, the Commissioner, the chief engineer, the chief mechanical engineer, the secretary and other high executive officers. Many people were of opinion that in the past there was not sufficient liaison between these officers, and the workings of the department would have been improved if there had been more liaison between them. The provision that there shall be a meeting of the chief executive officers at least once every three months instead of a conference once a month between heads of the department in each division and reports to the Commissioner will certainly be advantage to the working of the department. The practice has been to have meetings within the division and report to the Commissioner. This provision brings all the higher executive officers together at least every three months.

I feel that nothing but good can result from conferences of that kind. They will bring the Commissioner into closer touch with the heads of his branches and will also bring the branches closer together and give them a better realisation of each other's problems, which will be for the general good of the department as a whole. All the executive officers of the Railway Department will have to get their heads together during the next three years in order to deal adequately with the problems that will have to be faced, a'nd personal contact between

Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. (28 MARCH.] Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. 2167

the various officials will help to a large extent in securing the efficient working of the department.

I should like to see this system extended to the divisions. Let there be meetings of the sub-officer.s of each division with the general manager so that all lines of thought can be brought forward, together with fresh and better ideas for the more efficient running of the Railway Department.

The other provisions contained in t'his measure are largely of a machinery nature, and deal with examiners, fencing, mining under railway properties, travelling without a ticket and the removal of objectionable persons. I should like to say something on the matter of travelling without a: ticket, as to which there is certainly an anomaly at the present time. Any person who is found travelling without a ticket can be charged only in respect of travel within the petty sessions district in which he is caught. A man may traveil from Brisbane to Cairns and be caught in Cairns and perhaps have to pay only a few shillings. If a person evades the law by travelling wJthout a ticket, he should be forced to pay for the whole of the journey that he has travelled.

I hope the employees of the department will appreciate the gesture being made by the Government to them by repealing section 22A, which provides that anyone attending a stop-work meeting shall be automatically fined £1. In this State we have an excellent system of conciliation and arbitration, and there should be no necessity for the holding of stop-work meetings. Both employees and employers have full recourse to the Industrial Court, and I am _sure that if each side took full advantage of our industrial law, strikes, lockouts and other industrial troubles would be eliminated. I hope the gesture that is being made to the employees by the Government in removing this automatic fine for attending stop-work me.etings will have the effect of eliminating stop-work meetings altogether, a·nd that the employees will take full advantage of the avenues open to them whenever any industrial trouble arises.

In conclusion, I hope that the machinery amendments being made to this Act-the first amendments for 12 years-will help to remove some of the anomalies that have crept in, will bring about a: eloser liaison between the various executive offiGers of t:he Rruilway Department, and will result in better working and better service from the Queensland railways.

Mr. POWER (Baroona) (3.10 p.m.) : I feel that this amending Bill will give general satisfaction to railway employees and will bring about the better working of the Railway Department. I refer particularly to the amendment of the section that now provides for a monthly conference of general managers within a division. As a result of the amendment, the general managers, the chief engineers and the secretary of the various sectio'llB of the department can meet in conference and discuss local problems interwoven between one district and another. The views of the various officials thus expressed

will enable the Commissioner and his officers to solve some of the problems that now confront them and will confront them for some time. That amendment will be of great value in the future control and administration of the department and make for the improvement of the service in general.

Another provision in the Bill giveB an employee the right of appeal to the Governor in Council against dismissal by the Commissioner. That is very important. With a large body of men such as those in the Railway Department the men wh.o have been dismissed by the Commissioner may feel that they have a grievance. I am not suggesting that the Commissioner would dismiss anyone except for a sound reason unless it was purely political bias, and I would not accuse the Commissioner for Railways of being politically biased. It will be in the interests of everyone that this appeal should be granted to these employees. It takes from one individu~l the right to have the first and last say m connection with the dismissal of any employee from the department. I understand these rights were in the original Act, but were taken away when the State of Queensland was controlled by an anti-Labour Government from 1929 to 1932. They are now being restored by the Labour Government.

The right of appeal against temporary appointments is also very important. This right is given if the appointment has been advertised in the Weekly Notice. I am glad this matter has been brought forward. I have been critical on more than one occasion of the administration of the Railway Department with regard to the appointment of employees to temporary positions. We know that although employees have the right of protection of an appeal to the appeal board, they have found it very difficult to establish their rights, even though they have been senior men, owing to the fact that certain people in the Railway Department-and I make this statement advisedly-have placed men who have been junior to them in acting positions for a considerable period. That _is entirely wrong. After they have acted m these positions for some time they have been appointed to them. What happens~ The man senior to the appointee who has held the position temporarily for some time lodges his appeal to the appeal board. He is there asked, ''What experience have you had in this job~ Have you ever done the jobW" The, man has never done the job, not because of any fault of his own, but because the opportunity to do the job was never given to him, a temporary appointee having b~en placed in the position. I have a compla1~t about this condition, as it has operated m the Railway Audit Office for a considerable time. Recently a man, who I understand is somewhere about the fifth classified clerk in Queensland, was passed over for ~n appointment because he had never acted m the senior position. When the matter went before the appeal board the argument of the department was that he was appointed on the recommendation of the officer in charge of the Audit Office. The man who was recommended had had the experience; the


other man had no experience because he had never had the opportunity of relierving 1n the position.

I hope that matter will be cleared up once and for all. I say no person in or out of this Parliament can say whether a man is suitable-with very few exceptions-for a position unless he has at least been tried in that position. That is the point I make. Where appeals against appointments have been won by employees, they have had a certain time given to them in which to learn the job to which they have been appointed.

How can anyone logically contend that Bill Smith, who is a fifth-class clerk, cannot relieve in a fourth-class job simply because he has not had the experience~ We must all learn the different phases of railway work, and if we continue the policy adopted in the past we shall have nothing but a lot of robots doing one class of work in one section of the Railway Department. We shall never have men capable of taking over the administration of the railways unless opportunities are given to them of relieving in the various positions.

I congratulate the Minister upon this fine step forward which will mean that in future it will not be possible to appoint people temporarily to a position and keep them there until the vacancy is filled to the detriment of !lluch senior me~, men who if the opportumty had been g1ven to them might have better qualifications for it. This matter has been rankling in my mind for a long time. I have spoken on it on a number of occasions and I challenge anyone in th€1 railway service, from the Commissioner down, including any general manager, to say that he can decide with very few exceptions, whether a man i~ capable of relieving in a higher grade.

All men who join the Railway Department must pass a qualifying examination. After 30 years' service many of them are still sixth-class clerks, unclassified men, while some who have been there only 10 years have been put in positions in the classified section and allowed to remain there, with the result that when a vacancy occurs the senior man with ~he. 30 years' service is passed over by the ]umor man. I have brought the position before the notice of the Minister on more than one occasion. I know of an instance in which men in the Audit Office have applied for permission to relieve in positions carrying higher classifications but have been refused. Their reason for making the application was to protect their rights and to obtain a greater knowledge of th_e workings of the department so that they might become more efficient servants. To a certain. extent this amendment will meet my complamt and at the same time it will give those men who believe they have the necessary qua:ificati01:s an opportunity to apply for certam appomtments.

I a;m also pleased that it is now proposed to g1~e a ~emporary employee with one mo~th s serVIce the right of appeal against pumshment. We could not give such emp_loyees the right of appeal against promohon because their appointments are only

temporary but all should have the right of appeal against punishment.

The next provision repeals the section of the Act that gives conscientious objectors the right to refuse to work on Sunday. Despite the repeal of this provision I believe that the rights of any person who conscientiously objects to working on Sunday will be protected. I feel, however, that unfortunately in all sections of industry there are certain people who are prepared to use this argument when actually they have never entered a church in their lives, and instead of going to church on the Sunday they bask in the sunshine of the seaside or work elsewhere, while other employees are compelled to work almost every Sunday. I have every confidence that the department will see to it that those who have genuine conscientious objections will not be called upon to work on Sundays.

Mr. Pie: It is a very serious statement.

Mr. POWER: Any statements I make I stand up to. I am not like the hon. member, who makes violent and stupid statements in this Chamber and over the air and asks questions, only to find the reply of the Ministers showing how ridiculous he is.

At present, the appellant in an appeal case has the right to have evidence taken on commission. I believe it is right that he should have that privilege because I think it will save expense, but I also believe the Act should be amended to give the Commissioner the same right.

There is one very important clause in this Bill that requires some consideration. It is an amendment of which I heartily approve. It relates to the p6wer of the appeal board to direct that an employee be reinstated in any position. I believe it should be the sole right and prerogative of the Commissioner for Railways and the general manager to say where a man should be placed. If an employee has been convicted of an offence and the appeal board believes there should be some modification of the punishment, I do not believe the appeal board should have the right to say to the Railway Department, or any other Government department, that Bill Smith, who was a driver, should be re-engaged as a porter. I think it is quite unfair that the appeal board should have that right. All the appeal board should do is to say that the man should be re-instated in the Railway Department, with a salary fixed at a certain amount or restored to his former position. The Commissioner should then have the right to say where he is going to place that man. He is not going to place a round peg in a square hole, but he will place that man in a position where his services will be of advantage to the Railway Department. I agree with the proposed alteration.

The next amendment deals with the removal of persons from railway premises. The Act at present provides that all that can be done is to prosecute any such persons. If you have a man using obscene language on a railway platform and making a general nuisance of himself, I think the employees of


the Railway Department should have the right to throw him out on the street and put him off the premises altogether. I welcome that amendment.

The appointment of general managers by the Commissioner, subject to the confirmation of the Governor in Council, I think, is a very wise provision. The general manager of a railway department is an executive officer and I do not believe that at any time there should be an appeal against an appointment to an executive position. Appointments of general managers should not be subject to appeal and, Mr. Speaker, if you will just allow me to make this statement, I am sorry the Minister in his wisdom has not seen fit to make that provision apply to the appointment of the secretary to the Commissioner. The existing Act provides that the Commissioner for Railways can appoint the secretary and the Governor in Council has no say whatever in the matter. I find it hard to reconcile the two things. We find that in one case the classification of general manager has been preserved by an appointment at a higher salary. I refer now to the case of the general manager, Brisbane. We find that the secretary to the Commissioner, in accordance with the Act, must act as Commissioner during the absence of the Commissioner.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member to confine his address to the principles contained in the Bill.

Mr. POWER: I am just using that instance for the purpose of making a comparison. If a general manager is to be appointed in that way I think the secretary to the Commissioner, who is a higher officer than the general manager, should be appointed in a similar way. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to that aspect at a later stage or perhaps he may amend the Act at some other time.

I also desire to refer to the repeal of section 22A of the Act-the section that gives the Commissioner power to impose a fine of £1.

Mr. Walsh: That is an automatic imposition.

Mr. POWER: If any employee absents himself to attend a stop-work meeting, in accordance with the Act there is the automatic imposition of a £1 fine. I do not think that that section has any value whatever.

It may have inflicted a punishment on a few people but we find that where the good spirit of unionism prevailed the men who did not attend the stop-work, meeting subscribed to the collection taken up to pay the fine imposed on their work-mates. I commend them for their stand in that matter. If a unionist decides to attend a stop-work meeting to support a principle, nothing will prevent him. We find that in years gone by unionists went to gaol in defence of their principles. You cannot by the imposition of restrictions prevent unionists from getting together to discuss either the betterment of their conditions or the better working of their union. I am glad this amendment has been brought down. It is simply implementing the decision of the Labour in Politics Convention held some time ago.

This Bill makes provision for some important amendments. It will not only be satisfactory to the employees in general but for the betterment of the working of the railways. The clause that makes provision for the holding of a conference between the gener.al manager and his subordinate officers too wrll make for the better working of the department.

Mr. PIE (Windsor) (3.27 p.m.): On the introductory stage the Minister, in direct contrast to what happened this morning, outlined very fully the principles of the Bill. We were grateful to him for doing so. We had a very full debate on the initiation, therefore it is not my intention to cover the ground so ably covered by the Leader of the Opposition and well and ably covered by the hon. member for Toowoomba. The Minister has taken over a very important office, one in which he will require considerable courage to face up to his problems in the next few years. Already he is in trouble, but he is facing up to that trouble very effectively.

There are one or two things involved in the principles of this Bill that we should debate. One is the right of appeal so ably brought forward by the. hon. member for Toowoomba and again by the hon. member for Bowen: I agree that if a man has been found gmlty of an indictable offence he should have the right of appeal. The Minister interjected yesterday ''Would you employ a man in your factory after he had committed an indictable offence~" My answer to that is "Yes." I have employed men and therefore I do.

Mr. Walsh: Any bank robbers down there~

Mr. PIE: No bank robbers but there are men who have committed indictable offences. As the Minister is aware, persons are convicted in the lower court of what are really indictable offences, of which no notice is taken by the department.

I was very interested in the Minister's statement that in one of these amendments he was giving opportunity for the _appointment of junior commissioners. I hke that phrase, ''junior commissioners.'' It mefl;ns that at long last this Government are begmning to recognise ability, not seniority. I do commend the Minister for that phrase ' 'junior commissioners .. '' It gives us s?me hope that we might tram someone who might take the place of our present able <;ommissioner who might shortly be retired. Under the old system of seniority, the Minister knows very well that a man might he years and years in the service before he was even recognised as a permanent employee.

The hon. member for Baroona told us that some men did not even have a classification after 30 years' service in the railways. He also pointed out that in the Audit Office some men on a lower classification had been appointed to higher temporary jobs. Surely, they were appointed on ability, not. on seniority. If the railways are to set thn~gs going right-and they h;:tve a tremend~us JOb ahead; I should not hke to be facmg np to the job-and make good the toll that has


been taken of them during the war and get back to the condition that operated in peacetime, they will need men of tremendous ability not only to back up the Minister and the Commissioner but to back up the superintendents and the junior commissioners throughout the State. I think the Minister has made an important step in that direction. Apparently some of the younger members in his party have brought influence to bear on him to do it. (Laughter.) I only hope this antiquated Government will give some of these junior men the chance the Minister is giving some of the men in the railways.

The question of stop-work meetings again is something that needs a good deal of consideration. A stop-work meeting may last the whole afternoon. Imagine what that would mean in loss of production in the Ipswich workshops and cost to the Government! I think some further consideration must be given to the question. The railway employees have, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, arbitration and conciliation; surely that is the right approach to the problem.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is getting away from the principles of the Bill.

Mr. PIE: On stop-work meetings-there is a provision in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question of arbitration should not be discussed fully.

1'1:1'. PIE: Others have been allowed to do it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member must not show defiance to the Chair. Nobody has been allowed to deal fully with the principle of arbitration.

:Jllr. PIE : I do not show defiance of the Chair but I heard distinctly the Leader of the Opposition bring in the question of arbitration and conciliation in relation to stopwork meetings.

Mr. Walsh: Very brief reference.

Mr. PIE: It was very brief.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! What the hon. member for Windsor said is correct; it was not in my recollection. If what he claims is correct, I will do the fair thing by him.

::\Ir. PIE: The question of stop-work meetings is very important. I know a big , industry in which 600 men went out for half an hour. Imagine the loss of production there! The same thing could happen in the Ipswich workshops. I believe stop-work meetings are wrong and I believe they should be handled by some other method.

The right of appeal to temporary employees also is very important. I asked the Minister if he would define what a temporary employee was but up to date we have not got that definition. What has a man to do so that he will not be rega~ded as a temporary employee? Can he remain a temporary employee for 20 years~ Wl:]at is the position~ I think that

is a term the Minister might define while the Bill is being considered. Provision is made for the right of appeal for an employee after one month's employment.

Jllr. Walsh: You have a huge dictionary there.

Mr. PIE: If we have to use the dictionary we shall not get anywhere. What is the Minister's definition~ What is the department's definition of temporary employed Surely a man who has spent a lifetime in the railways must at some time or other be regarded as a permanent employee~ I should hate to think people working outside Government departments would ever think after 20 years that they could not he regarded as permanent employees.

The question of royalties raised by the Leader of the Opposition is very important. I should like some ruling from the Minister as to what he intends to do in regard to taking gravel and other things from private property.

If gravel is taken continuously from creekbeds and other locations, consirlerablB erosion may rp-<ult. If it is to be taken from a private creek-bed, the Minister should tell us whether he proposes to make some allowance to the people from whom he is taking it. That could be a very important matter. However, I do not want to labour it because the Leader of the Opposition madr out a very effective case on the subject, which I think should be given every consideration.

The matter of conscientious objectors has been raised. A man's religion is something that he has to live up to. It does not matter what religion we have, it is something that is horn into us and we must keep to its principlrs. Therefore, if a man is a genuine conscientious objector, why should he have to w·ork on Sunday 1

.:lir. Power: He will not.

.:lir. PIE : It has been said that the Govemment are taking out of the Act the right to refuse to work. The hon. member has said so himself.

.:lir. Power: Common sense will apply.

~Ir. PIE; I know ti1 ,t common sense ~p];]ips, but it does not apply always.

JUr. Power: It never does over there.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

llr. PIE: Common sense as applied to kgislation does not always work out_ ThP longer I stay in this House the mor"' I realise how necessary it is to lay down in a Bill what is actually intruded. It is no use leaving things to common sense or to anything else.

If a man is bom to a religion and has definite conscientious objections, surely to goodness he has the right of appeal to someone and to have his case fully examined~

lir. Power: He has, to the general manager.

Mr. PIE: This amendment makes it quite clear that conscientious objectors will have to work on Sunday.


Mr. Walsh: It does nothing of the sort.

Mr. PIE: Then what does it mean? }lr. Walsh: Work it out for yourself.

Y uu should read the Bill.

)fr. PIE: That is the way I read the Bill. }Jr. Gair: You do not understand it.

}fr. PIE: You do not understand everything, either.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

}lr. PIE: The matter of executives meeting every three months also is very important. 'l'he problems associated with the development of the Queensland railways will not arise in any one section of the railways, and each section will have to work one with the other.

The hon. member for Baroona made out a very strong case in relation to appeals, but in my opinion he built up his case on seniority as against ability. Do this Government believe in that principle? 'l'he Government have young men coming on in all their depar·tments but unless they are promoted quickly they will get out. A brilliant young engineer will probably be coming into my employ shortly from a Government department because he is in a dead-end job. That raises a point that I want to bring before this House. The Government must encourage the young men who are coming on if they want to build up a capable and efficient service.

Mr. Power: Do you not think that a man should be tried out in a position before- he is condemned~

Mr. PIE: I think men should be tried out in positions. The more responsibility you ('an give a man, the quicker will he become a valuable servant. You must give a man responsibility in order to se-e if he is capable of carrying it-that is a common principlebut in my opinion the Government have not in the past been giving the young men the chances that they deserved. I think every hon. member of the Government will agree with me on that.

I do not like the provision that there sha1l be no appeal against the appointment of a general manager in any division. Ot course, I am inclined to agree that the appointment of executive officers shall remain the sole prerogative of the Commissioner and the Governor in Council. But I feel that there may be at some time a case in which a diYisional manager is appointed that would warrant appeal to someone. I think provision is made for appeal to thP Governor in f'onnril hnt it may be very di:firult for that m:m 1d10 may ha ,.o be ·n a superintend(mt for a lengthy period to fight such an appeal.

Mr. Power: He can only be appointed on the recommendation of the Commissioner.

Mr. PIE : I take it that he will be appointed on the recommendation of the Commissioner to the Governor in Council. It may be that he has spent a lifetime, 20 or 30 years, as superintendent in the North, for instance, and has built up the service but

there may be a younger and more active man closer to the Commissioner whom the Commissiur;er thinks could do a better job. l feel that that superintendent in the North whom the department has kept there for many years acting more or less as divisional manager when that officer was absent should have the right of appeal. I think that he is probably just one man who should have the right, the man who has been acting as sub to the general manager in such an arra. Any man who spends his lifetime with the ambition of becoming general manager would feel very depressed-in fact it would knock every tl.inrr o·1t of him-if someone was appointeil. over· him and he had no right of appeal. I contend that if there is the right of appeal for one there should be that right for all, irrespective of how high or low the man's position might be. That democratic principle should be encouraged.

Mr. Walsh: Even the appointment of Commissioner~

Mr. PIE: There would be something even in that. I am glad the Minister raises it although I know it is not in the Bill. A Commissioner might be appointed and if a man felt that he was being overlooked-you might bring a man from America--

Mr. Walsll: There is many a man who would. think he could do the job.

Mr. PIE: You might bring a man from Amerira or Canada, as the Airways Commission proposes to do to run Australian Airways. (Interjections.)

Mr. §PE A.KER: Order! The hon. member is entitled to continue his speech without intzrruption.

Mr. PIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, They might even get a man from Canada or any part of the world and a man who is passed oYer for the Commissioner's position smely would be entitled to appeal to someone. He should have the right to app al to the Governor in Council if you like. I am a great believer in the right of appeal. Having handled a number of employees for a number of years I know that again and again where appointments have been made, appeals have come forward and the cases have been considered.

There is very little more that I desire to say but I assure the Minister that any suggestions I have made have been put forward in a constructive and not a destructive spirit. The Commissioner is on the eve of his retirement and under the conditions during the war he did a wonderful job. The Minister taking· over the job has been left a legacy from tlL· war. Every member of this Parliament must realise that and must help him as far as possible in the job he has ahead of rebuilding our railways and bringing them back to the position they should occupy m peace.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I called the hon. member for ·windsor to order when he proposed to discuss the principles of arbitration. The bon. member then said that the Leader of

2172 Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway.s Acts Amendt. Bill.

the Opposition had made reference to that point. I told him that if that was so I would do justice to him. I find in the transcript of the proceedings that the Leader of the Opposition did make reference to it and consequently tile hon. member for Windsor was correct.

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani-Minister for Transport) (3.45 p.m.), in reply: In the main, the speakers to the proposed amendments have agreed that they are in the interests of the Railway Department and concede some improvements to the employees so far as rights of appeal and the functioning of the appeal board are concerned.

The first point raised by the Leader of the Opposition dealt with conscientious objectors. There has been a provision in the Railways Act, I suppose ever since it has been in force, that did give certain protection to them. It provides that they shall have protection if they have a conscientious objection, but it does not say on what grounds. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Windsor are only assuming that those objections may be based on religious grounds. Somebody may object to working on Sunday because it is Sunday, or working on Saturday because it is Saturday. The Act does not specifically say that the conscientious objections must be based on religious grounds.

Mr. Nicklin: But that is generally implied.

Mr. WALSH: That may be so but the lawyers work not on what the law implies bUt on what Parliament has said in the Act. Somebody may object to working on Sunday. The hon. member for Windsor himself probably might have objections to doing that and if he were working in the Railway Department he might make that a conscientious objection, but there have been abuses of this section and in my opinion the justification for it does not exist. Those employees particularly affected in the running section know when they join the Railway Department that it is a seven-days-a-week job. We have to run trains every day in the week if they are required in the public interest. Consequently anyone who is joining that section of the department must realise that his services may be called upon day or night seven days of the week, subject of course to the limitations that may be prescribed by industrial awards and so on.

The matter was brought to my notice in the first place as the result of a dispute between unions thelllselves within the Railway Department. A member of one union refused to do his share of Sunday work when he had been employed as a driver for a considerable period. He was then directed to another job in the general manager's office in his division and in that job he had no objection whatever to working on Sundays, whether for 8 hours or 10 hours, but immediately he was asked to take his place on the footplate again he bailed up and said he had conscientious objections, the same as he had had over the years prior to his going to the general manager's office. That showed a clear abuse of the protection that was accorded to this employee.

Mr. Pie: But you could deal with him, could you not~

Mr. W ALSH: He was dealt with, he was dismissed, but we do not want to get into the position of having to dismiss men. It is much better to deal with a man in keeping with the accepted principles of railway administration generally. On the other hand, it was related to me in the Railway Department that there were many men who were avoiding their obligations to do their share of Sunday work and who went away kangarooshooting or duck-shooting or doing something else on Sunday. Then you have the man who may want to attend the racecourse on Saturday afternoon. He may suddenly become a conscientious objector and say that he objects to working on Saturdays, and this only because he wants to go to the races.

Mr. Pie: But you could deal with them?

Mr. WALSH: If a man is a conscientious objector, how can we deal with him t The fact remains that he has that right under the law. In the particular case to which I have referred it was proved that the employee had abused this provision.

When he got into a different job he had no hesitation whatever in working on Sunday. It was thought it was wise to deal with the matter in this way and repeal the section. I want to give hon. members the assuranceand I make the statement here-that thD conduct of any responsible officer of the Rai!IYay Department who seeks in any way to penalise any railway eniployee who de.sires to attend religious worship on Sunday, because of the latter's religious views, will not be looked on favourably by the Government.

Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. W ALSH: The Government expect that the Act will be administered in a fair and impartial way and I haw no doubt that will be done. For example, I know in my own district there are those who adhere to the beliefs of Seventh Day Adventists. 'l'he department has no hesitation in arranging the roster to give them Saturday off so that they ma.y be relie•·ed of anything that might he on their consciences if they worked on Saturday.

Mr. Gair: And when they work on Sunday they get penalty rates~

Mr. WALSH: That is one of the anomalies that creeps in. If they work on Sundays they do get paid penalty rates.

Mr. Pie: That is unfair. Mr. WALSH: After all, that is the indus

trial law of the land and you cannot expect the department to infringe the law. It can be shown that at the present time if any railway employee is knovm to be a strict adherent to his religious beliefs, he is always provided for. However, it is an unreasonable thing, I think, to allow a position to continue whereby other employees are going· to impose upon their fellow workers and refuse to undertake what after all is their obligation to the community. In any ca~e, they do not have that right in any under-

Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. [28 MARCH.) Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. 2173

taking, such as e-lectricity or gas, where work has to be carried out on a seven-day-week basis. Nobody supposes that to be right in private industry, in the hon. member for Windsor's undertaking, for instance. I hesitate to think what would happen if somebody said, "Well, we !Lre going to knock off on Friday because Friday is the day we want to celebrate.''

Mr. Pie: What religion would want Friday~

~Ir. W ALSH: It could be the same as the hon. member for Windsor's-I do not know. Somebody may want to knock off on Monday, somebody on Tuesday) and so on. I have no fear that this power will be administered in anything but an impartial way by the Railway Department, and I give the assurance to hon. members of the Assembly that the Government expect it to be administered in that way.

The proposal to relieve the Commissioner •for Railways of the payment of royalties on sand, gravel, clay and so on really is only an extension of the power to remove water from watercourses. By the addition of those words to the clause, the Commissioner is in no way relieved of his obligation to see that damage is limited to the minimum, and if damage is done by any servant of the Commissioner compensation will be payable in exactly the same way as at present in other respects. The usual practice, which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realises, is for contracts to be called by the Commissioner for the supply of so much ballast-it need not necessal'ily be an employee of the Commissionerand in very few instances probably could damage be shown. Generally speaking, it can be assumed that this ballast is supplied by private contractors. They submit tenders, which include the payment of royalties, and the Commissioner is obliged to pay those royalties to the Irrigation Department. There is no reason why we should continue a system between Government departments of asking one body to make payment to another. The Commissioner has had the right to remove water from watercourses in order to carry on the railways and to run and service the railway system. We think that the same right should exist in regard to gravel, clay and the othrr things mentioned. If the hon. member ·will look at the section in the principal Act he will see that the Commissioner, when he removes clHy and gravel, will be hound by all the limitations that are imposed upon him there in reference to water.

Mr. Nicklin: It will not absolve him from paying compensation~

Mr. W ALSH: Oh no, it will not in any wny absolve the Commissioner, ns the Leader of the Opposition would see if he read the section in the principal Act, which shows that that protection is there. If weakness does arise as time goes on .and the Commissioner invokes powers of that kind, even if some mistake is made-which I do not think will happen-the people concerned are fully protected as they are prior to the proposed amendments.

I was interested to hear the approval of the Leader of the Opposition of the proposed

right of appeal to the Governor in Council. It is suggested that he at least was one of the members of the anti-Labour Party who voted against the elimination of that from the Act at the time.

~Ir. Nicklin: I was not here.

~lr. 1VALSH: If the hon. gentlrmmn was not here he cannot be blamed for any Act of the Government of the day. The fact remains that the Government have thought it right to extend that right of appeal against employees dismissed by the Commission& under section 17. The Commissioner uses this power very sparingly. I have looked into the cases dismissed under section 17 and I know from discussions with the Commissioner that he thinks the general manager should dismiss an employee in some cases in order to give him the right of appeal, but there are cases of theft and offences of that kind which are notJ treated as indictable offences that are dealt with in the police court and in 'regard to which we think the Commissioner should still )lave that right to dismiss. The right of appeal to the Governor in Council, as hon. members have conceded, will give a further degree of jUJ3tice to employees.

With regard to the meeting of officials, actually the Act lays it down at present that the Commissioner should meet all these officials once a month. That has not been done for many years, if done at all. ~he

practice has been to hold quarterly meetmgs which general managers throughout the State attend. The officers in the head office, such as the chief engineer and secretary also attend quarterly meetings, at which the general managers confer with the c.ommi.ssioner on the problems that have ansen m their respective divisions. Only good can ar.ise from these meetings. You brmg the executiVe officers together and they go through their experiences in the administration of the department.

The matter of classification raised by the hon. member for Baroona and the suggestion that there were in the department many who have given 30 years' service and still remain employed as classified clerks is something f cannot see can be overcome. 'The same position occurs in any big in~ustry.. Take any big departmental store m Brisbane, for example embracing grocery, hardware, drapery' and similar lines. In those places you hav'e men who have become specialists in their departments. It does not foll?w t~at any one of them after 20 or 2? years .. servrce will be appointed to any special positiOn.

Mr. Pie: But he is classified as a shop assistant.

Mr. WALSH: He will get the award rate for a shop assistant and no more. So here -the clerk reaches the maximum classification the Industrial Court has fixed.

Mr. Dnggan: Which is higher than the shop assistant's wage.

Mr. WALSH: That is so. As time goes on there is provision for clerks in that grade to' become classified, when they are paid a


higher rate. There are fifth-, fourth-, third-, and second-class clerks, and so on. That is a step up the ladder. One must realise that in the audit section you must have quite a number of employees. People are employed there as clerks probably throughout the whole period of their employmBnt in the department.

If they do get into branches where they show they have capacity and ability and win their spurs by way of promotion, they are able to proceed into the other branchBs because of their classifications and they have that right to apply for positions of equal classification in another avenue.

Mr. Pie: When do they become permanenU

Mr. WALSH: I will give the hon. member a good illustration of the difference between permanent and temporary positions directly.

The classification of employees within the Railway Department is governed by the extent of the business within the various sections and the capacity and ability of the clerk to step up and show that he has some ability. Generally speaking, my experience with the Commissioner and his officers is that they select those who they think are best suited for the jobs. There is always the challenge by way of appeal against any appointee who may be selected for a particular position by the Commissioner or his officers. The Commissioner cannot be BxpectBd to come into contact with all his employees, even all those within the administrative section. He has to depend largely on the recommendation of his superior officers in nominating those who may be appointed to positions. Consequently you can see that even though the Commissioner desires to put the most suitable man into a job there is always the challBnge from those who think they can do the job better, and who may be senior to the appointee and who may evBntually have the appointee upset from his position. There are any amount of people in the railway service, and outside, who think they can do a better job than the presBnt Commissioner. They are entitled to their views and I am entitled to mine.

Mr. Pie: 'Some think they could do a better job than the Minister.

Mr. WALSH: That is true; I do not doubt that they could-many of them.

Various matters were raised by the hon. member for Windsor. He made particular reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Toowoomba of the automatic dismissal from employment of an employee convicted of an indictable offence. The law is very specific on that question at the moment. The wisdom of altering it will have to have ve;y careful constderation. Although we may thmk of a particular case we have to regard the welfare of the community generally and the more efficient and effective administration of the department. I agree that there are cases such as that outlined by the hon. member for Toowoomba, in which it could not be said that the men were criminals in the true sense of the term. I might instance

the case of a bigamist, who would be charged in the Supreme Court with an indictable offence. He would lose his job, although he might be capable and competent. You have to ask yourself if you are going to amend the law for the bigamist or the personator and similar offenders. I promised the Committee the other day that I would look this section over and see if some alteration could be made without in any way affecting the efficient working of the Railway Department.

As to temporary employees, the word itself should be clear enough to the hon. member for Windsor. If he wants an example of the difference between temporary and permanent, I shall be in a better position to give it to him after the 1947 Blections, when I shall be able to show that he had been a member for Windsor for a very brief period, and could not regard his position as being permanent. That would be a good illustration of the meaning of temporary employee. Speaking generally, a department like the Railway Department has necessarily very often to undertake work of a kind that is not permanent. Take the damage done to the railway tracks throughout North Queensland at the present time, when it is necessary to pick up casual labour. Those men may be employed for three or four months, as the case may be, according to the requirements of the department.

A policy has existed for some years past, however, of engaging employees on a temporary basis where they have not entered the Railway Department in the usual way, that is, by passing an examination. Clerks are obliged to pass an examination for entry into the clerical branch of the Railway Department. Likewise, men who desire to get into the locomotive branch have to pass an examination of a standard laid down by the department. The employees in the traffic, locomotive and clerical branches are all required to pass the requisite examination and, in addition, to submit themselves to and pass the necessary medical test. That entitles them, if they are accepted, to be regarded as permanent employees. However, the mere fact that they are regarded as permanent employees does not give them any greater protection than it would if they were employed by the hon. member for Windsor. When he finds that he has too many employees, he dismisses them, irrespective of how long they have been employed.

Mr. Pie: But that factor is taken into consideration.

Mr. WALSH: If the hon. member had 40 employees who had been on his staff for 20 years and he found it necessary to dismiss some of them, he would dismiss those for whom he had no work. The same thing applies to what might be regarded as the permanent employees in the Railway Department.

You may have some temporary employees who have been employed in the department for 20 years. A similar type of employee is found in the Public Service. When I was Secretary for Public Lands there were employees in the Lands Department who could

Railways Acts Amerult. Bill. (28 MARCH.] Railways Acts Amendt. Bill. 2175

not pass the necessary medical examination but who were otherwise able to do their work quite well. They have been employed, particularly in technical positions, as temporary employees for long periods.

Mr. Pre: Do you not think something could be done in eases like thatf

Mr. W ALSH: The alternative would be to dismiss them and to make them look for work elsewhere. They cannot be accepted as permanent employees. After all, the Railway Department has to maintain a certain standard of health and education in its employees in certain branches of its activities. For a number of years past it has been the practice to accept temporary employees who have completed 12 months' continuous service into the department as permanent employees if vacancies have existed. Latterly, however, it has been found that although the Commisflioner may desire to transfe1· some of those employees to another centre, they have refused to go. In my opinion, if a railway employee is to be of any value to the public he must be trained from his youth. It is not much use accepting into the Railway Department as permanent employees men who are in their mid-thirties or more and expecting them to react to training in the same way as a young man.

Mr. Pie: What is the proportion of temporary employees in the departmenU

Mr. W ALSH: I could not give the hon. member that information off-hand. The number varies from time to time. The total number of employees in the Railway Department at present is between 21,000 and 22,000, and by far the larger proportion of them are neces,sarily permanent employees.

The hon. member had something to say about appeals against appointments to the position of general manager. He seemed to think it was a good thing to bring in these junior men. My remarks in the first place were intended to convey that the position of general manager could be regarded as equal to that of junior commissioner. In other words, instead of his having responsibility for the administration of the railways over the whole State, such an officer would hav<J that responsibility in a particular division and could be described as junior commissioner or deputy commissioner. At first, the hon. member seemed to be very much in favour of getting young men into executive positions.

He then proceeded to doubt the wisdom of taking out of the Act the provision that gives the right of appeal against the appointment of these young men. That does not take it any further ahead than it is at present. The Commissioner would have the right at the present time to appoint somebody within the service who he thinks would be the most suitable grneral manager. But there are a number of other people in the service who would not hold the same view as the Commissioner and they in turn would have the right of appeal against that appointment. The Government believe that if we are to look for more efficient management of the

1946-4 E

department in the future the Commissioner should have the right to recommend to the Governor in Council who he thinks are most suited for these positions without any appeal. I think it can be said that even the hon. member for Windsor in his own business would not consider whether a man had a bald head or too many grey hairs; he would be looking at the bottom rungs of the ladder where the yonng men with vigour, youth a.D:d initiative were. A good deal of that Hl required in many of our public departments today. Youth has its place today. The hon. member has seen on this side of the House such youth and vigour that it has been able to keep those in opposition awake.

Generally speaking, the Bill has been accepted as one that will provide for the better working of the Railway Department.

Motion (Mr. Walsh) agreed to.

COMMITTEE.

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Mann, Brisbane, in the chair.)

Clauses 1 to 15, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 16-Accommodation works; Fences, &e.-

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) ( 4.15 p.m.): This .cl~ use de~ls with the obligation of the Comm1ss1oner w1th respect to the maintenance of fences on land that has been resumed and it is limited to his keeping such fences in the same condition as he found them in when the land was resumed.

If the owner of the adjoining land wants another fence, he has to pay the whole of the cost. What is the position if the Commissioner thinks that the fence is not good enough and he wants another fence1 \"Vho has to pay for that fence~ Is the owner of the land compelled to pay for the fence that the Commissioner might put up, or does the Commissioner pay the entire cost, or do both parties pay half the cost as in the case of an ordinary dividing fence between properties~

The reason why I ask this is that sometimes railway work can be very expensive. Rece~tly a little bit of work came under my notice. It involved the removal of the stay-pole from a railway telephone line to enable an e_xtension of a building to be made on ra1lway property. That pole was only a few inches through and although I do not profess to be a weakling or an abo. I will wager that I could have chopped it down in five minutes. The amount paid for the removal of that pole was over £11. That is a solid amount. I think anybody would have been happy to do it for £1 or 30s. That is the reason why I bring up the question of railway fences and why I should like to know whose respo~sibility it is if the Commissioner should dec1de to erect a new fence.

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani-Minister for Transport) ( 4.17 p.m.) : The Commissioner's obligations for fencing on railway property come under numerous headings. There are

2176 Torres Strait Islanders [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

tases in which he is obliged to keep the fence in a state of repair and to undertake certain expense. It may be that the land resumed may carry with it a condition that he shall undertake certain obligations. One could hardly say that there is any specific obligation.

If the Main Roads Commission goes through Jl property through which there is no road it has a certain obligation to fence both sides of the land resumed for a road. I should say that if the Commissioner for Railways, for his own convenience, and not for the convenience of the landholder, required a fence, then the Commissioner would undertake the cost of it.

Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 20, both inclusive, as read,

llgreed to. Bill reported without amendment.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Walsh, read a third tin,e.

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. T. A. FOLEY (Normanby-Secretary for Health and Home Affairs) (4.20 p.m.): l move-


I outlined fairly fully the main principles eontained in the measure on the initiatory stage, but for the benefit of any h·on. members who may not have been present I would mention that the Bill has to do principally with the allocation of the profits from the business of the Island Industries Board, which was set up to trade in the Torres Strait islands on behalf of the islanders. The powers of the board are set out in the Torres Strait Islanders Act. They are very wide and give the board power to deal in almost any kind of business appertaining to the activities of the islands.

At 4.21 p.m., The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

(Mr. Mann, Brisbane) relieved Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. FOLEY: For instance, the board may be banker, blacksmith, builder, carpenter, commission agent, common carrier, dealer, farmer, fisherman (including fishing for pearl, trochus shell, and beche-de-mer), general merchant, importer, ironworker, labour agent, manufacturer, and a host of other things.

In the course of the board's trading activities on behalf of the Torres Strait islanders it has had occasion to distribute certain surplus profits that have resulted from its transactions. The schedule of the Act requires that the surplus shall be allocated or appropriated to the general welfare of the islanders. It has so happened that certain profits that have resulted from the business of the board have been mainly the result of

the activities of certain sections of the Torres Strait islanders. Naturally, it was felt in the administration of the Act that the fair and proper thing to do was to distribute profits derived from a certain section amongst the section concerned. I will mention one instance-the work of the natives, both men and women, at Poid Island. There was a wolfram deposit there, and that metal was in great demand during the war period. The natives were encouraged to exploit the deposit to aid the war effort. The Island Industries Board advanced a certain sum of money against the metal as it was produced. Later, when the returns from the sales were received from the board, it was found that there was £1,169 to be distributed among those natives. According to the schedule of the Act that money should have been distributed for the benefit of the whole of the islanders in the Torres Strait group. Of course, that would have been unfair and it would have been an injustice to the particular section who produced the wolfram.

Anoth-er illustration can be given where the board had occasion to render assistance to certain boats that were in difficulty. An endeavour was made to help them to enable them to carry on their calling of pearl-shell fishing.

Here again there was a distribution from profits to the section of islanders concerned. We found also that a branch store at Cowal Creek aboriginal camp on the mainland had as its main contributors a group of aboriginals. Hence the profits derived from its transactions were wholly as a result of that particula'r mainland group. Cons,equently, the administration distributed the profits amongst that particular group.

The Auditor-General pointed out that these transactions were not strictly legal. It is now intended to amend the Act in such a way that generally speaking the profits will be distributed for the benefit of the islanders as a whole, but the Governor in Council can from time to time make a distribution of profits on the recommendation of the Minister, who, naturally, would receive advice from the Director of Native Affairs. That will straighten out the position and it will place us in a position to give a greater measure of justice to the individual sections that may be affected in future. At the same time it will allow us to administer the Act as a whole in aid of the Torres Strait islanders generally.

There is another provision in the Bill making valid the actions I have referred to as well as any other actions that may not have been valid as a result of the endeavour of the Director of Native Affairs and the board to do the right thing in the direction indicated.

I feel that in the near future there will be considerable activity in the Torres Strait islands, as a result of the discharge of 800 men from the Army. That will place the Island Industries Board in a much better position in regard to the distribution and allocation of its profits than in the past. For instance, if a section is responsible direct~y for the production of certain metals·, as 1n

Torres Strait Islanders [28 IliARCH.) Act Amendment Bill. 2177

the ease o:f the miners, and a profit results, those profits will go to the section concerned. The same principle will apply to certain boats.

:Mr. Edwards: You made that clear in your introductory remarks.

Mr. FOLEY: I mention this because it is possible that some hon. members were not present during the debate on the initiation o:f this Bill.

Mr. Pie: It is tedious repetition.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. FOLEY: I am giving the House the main principles o:f the Bill. It is not such a tremendously long one but it does contain a principle that hon. members who were not present when it was introduced and desire to hear should be aware o:f. I have dealt with the two main principles of the Bill and commend it to the House for its :favourable consideration.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) ( 4.29 p.m.) : This Bill is really quite a simple one. It contains nevertheless an important provision in that it prescribes that any surplus· profits of the island industries shall be appropriated as the Governor in Council directs instead of to the general welfare of the islanders as the Act at present provides. The Act is to be amended to read that the profits shall be distributed ''in such a manner as the Governor in Council shall from time to time determine. ' ' The principle is being enunciated that the natives engaged in particular trading or mining activities shall receive, should the Governor in Council so decide, the full profits of their work.

I entirely agree with this principle. Take the example quoted by the Minister, in which one group of islanders by their work and industry earned a profit that they were entitled to share amongst their own group rather than have it spread over all the islands. Similarly any other island engaged in trochus-shell fishing or any other marine work is entitled to share the profits amongst its own people. The amendment will make for the better working of the islands. We must admire the community spirit that has been developed by the Torres Strait islanders, and the way in which they have worked hard to better themselves, and the example they have set in accepting responsibility in the government of their affairs. Generally, the policy :followed-placing responsibility on themhas been definitely to their advantage.

I notice in the last report presented by the Director of Native Affairs that virtually the whole of the able-bodied men of the Torres Strait islands-some 700 in all-served in the military forces. That is a remarkably good record, for which they deserve every credit.

I take it that all the trading activities engaged in by these islanders are handled by what is known as the Island Industries Board. During the :vear I notice that trochus shell worth £13,000 was won by one group and marine products worth £2,738 were won by another group; and there was also the sum

m.entioned by the Minister this morning in 1·egard to mining. In addition to that there are the general trading activities of the concern.

At 4.32 p.m., Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair.

Mr. NICKLIN: That being so, there should have been some mention in the Auditor-General's report o:f the activities of the Island Industries Board, but we find that there is absolutely no mention of its activities. This board was created a corporation by the Act o:f 1939, section 30 of which provides that the books o:f account of the board shall be audited by the AuditorGeneral. I cannot find any record of the activities of this board in the AuditorGeneral's annual report, with the exception that at the back we find there were three defalcations by employees in the is!and industries concerned. Apparently the AuditorGeneral is carrying out his duties under the Act in auditing the activities of the island industries; but seeing that it handles a considerable sum of money there should be included in his report a statement dealing with the business of the island industries.

Mr. Foley: You might find it under the heading of Trust Accounts.

Mr. NICKLIN: I have looked all through the report and I cannot :find it. I refer the matter to the Minister for attention. I think he and every other hon. member will agree that an undertaking of this magnitude should be reported upon by the Auditor-General.

I hope that this amendment will be of advantage and benefit to the people in the Torres Strait Islands. They have done a good job :for themselves, and any help we can give them to further the good work already donP and to help them with the problem of rehabilitating 700 men in civilian life should be given.

Mr. KERR (Oxley) (4.35 p.m.): An important principle is involved in this measure in that the results of each worker's efforts shall accrue to him. I have seen many coloured men working in my time and I have found that they are exactly the same as white men in that you get much more work out of some than others.

I commend the Minister :for bringing this Bill in and I am glad to see that any individual who is willing to work will receive the :full benefit of his labour.

Motion (Mr. Foley) agreed to.

COMMITTEE.


Clauses 1 to 3, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Foley, read a third time.

2178 Aboriginals Preservation and [ASSEMBLY.] Protection Act Amendt. Bill.

ABORIGINALS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. T. A. FOLEY (Normanby-Secretary for Health and Home Affairs) (4.39 p.m.): I move-


I dealt very fully with the prov1s1ons contained in this measure during the initiation stage and I think every hon. member here was present on that occasion.

The measure contains really only two principles. The first one deals with the moving of aboriginals from one district to another and the doing away with the necessity for recognisances, which is provided for in the Act itself. The Director of Native Affairs has reported to me that that is unnecessary and is rather unwieldy. It has never been practised. All the protection required is contained in the regulations under the Act. That is the system that has been followed for many years.

The other principle deals with the admissibility of confessions of guilt by aboriginals charged with or suspected of committing any crime, misdemeanour or other indictable offence. The Solicitor-General has reported that under the Act as it stands at present the average aboriginal is in a much better position in that regard than the average white child of 14 years.

If he makes confession of guilt that confession is not admissible as evidence in the court where he is being tried. In view of the fact that our aboriginals today-the great majority of them, except a few myalls in some of the more isolated parts of the State-receive an education and consequently know right from wrong and when they make a confession know exactly what they are saying and doing; it is proposed, while still giving them a great measure of protection, to provide in this Bill that if a confession is made before a trial before it can be admitted as evidence, the judge in chambers shall interrogate the aboriginal in the presence of counsel for the prosecution and the defence. As the result of that interrogation, he will be in a position to determine whether the aboriginal really understood what he was doing or whether the confession was made under pressure or under duress. He would then decide whether the confession should be admitted as evidence. I think hon. members will agree that this is a considerable protection and at the same time will enable the courts to do justice in certain cases. We have found that in the past they have not been able to penalise an aboriginal who was guilty of an offence, sometimes the very serious offences such as rape, because of the present state of the law.

In effect that is all that is contained in the measure.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) ( 4.42 p.m.) : The Minister has said that this Bill contains two principles only and in the main I think these principles

will be advantageous in the administration of the Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Act. The first principle deals with the transference of an aboriginal from one district to another. Under the Act an employer who desires to trans,fer an aboriginal from one district to another has to enter into a recognisance binding him to pay all expenses of the return to the original district and to pay all wages. Although that provision has been in the Act for a number of years I do not think it has been carried out to any great extent. As a result of the working of the Act, it has been found that this recognisance from the employer was never necessary, and there were ample provisions in the regulations to safeguard the interests of the aboriginal.

1\lr. Foley: To protect them through the protectors.

1\lr. NICKLIN: Yes, and apparently the protector, who has an intimate knowledge of the handling of this question, was quite satisfied that he could maintain all the necessary superv1s10n without this provision as it stands at the present time. Of course, the Act as it will be a'mended will apply if an aboriginal is transferred to a place beyond Queensland. I think that is necessary and desirable.

The second principle deals with the admission as evidence of confessions by aboriginals. It is admitted that the provisions in the Act are certainly very favourable to the· aboriginal. After all, that was to be desired when many of the aboriginals, as they were when the original Act was passed, were wild blacks of not a very high standard of intelligence, and not used to civilised conditions and the laws of the white man.

But since the Act was first passed there has been a general raising of the standard of the aboriginal. If tl1e present provision is continued it certainly will place some of the more educated aboriginals in a very advantageous position should they be charged with any serious crime.

There is, however, one slight weakness in the proposed amendment. The present section of the Act states that no admission of guilt or confession before trial shall be sought or obtained and that if obtained apparently voluntarily it shall not be admissible as evidence. The proposed amendment repeals the existing provision and states that such admission or confesson of guilt shall be admissible if the judge in chambers, with only the Crown Prosecutor and defendant''s counsel present, is satisfied that the aboriginal understood the meaning of his statement or confession and that such statement or confession was obtained voluntarily and without duress or pressure of any sort. It is important to note the words ''obtained voluntarily.''

The Minister explained that the amendment was necessary because many aboriginals are well enough educated and familiar enough with the English language to understand fully what they are doing, but the fact remains that there are still many who are not, and the repeal of the present position

Aboriginals, &c., Amendt. Bill [28 MARCH.] Special Adjournment. 2179

Temoves the prohibition against seeking or {)btaining an admission or confession. Under the Act as amended by this Bill a member of the Police Force will now be entitled to seek such an admission or confession from any aboriginal, irrespective of his understanding. It is then left to the judge to decide whether an admission or confession that was sought by the prosecution was obtained voluntarily. This seems to be rather contradictory and I think it would be clearer if the wording was changed to "made voluntarily.'' The legal profession may hold the view that "obtained voluntarily" is the better wording, but in my opinion "made voluntarily'' gives the necessary protection that I think we intend to give to the aboriginal against the use of duress to make a statement prior to his appearing in chambers.

Mr. Gledson: The person who is seeking tl1e information obtains it.

Mr. NICKLIN: But the question I am raising is how he obtains it. After the passing of this Bill there will be nothin~ to prevent a person from seeking or obtaming from an aboriginal an admission before he appears in chambers, and then if the judge is satisfied that the admission was obtained properly it is accepted, but it leaves the doorway open for bringing pressure to bear on the aboriginal to makP a confession, whereas if we alter the wording to ''made voluntarily'' it would then provide that only where the aboriginal voluntarily made the statement could it be admitted as evidence after the safeguard of the meeting in chambers.

I do not know whether the Minister is perfectly satisfied that complete protection is being given. It may be, but in my opinion there is a doubt about this wording and I feel that if it was "made voluntarily" instead of ''obtained voluntarily'' it would give greater protection to the aboriginal, and after all that is what we are seeking to do in amending this section of the Act.

Hon. T. A. FOLEY (Norman by-Secretary for Health and Home Affairs) (4.50 p.m.): I think the hon. gentleman is not reading the word "obtained" in its proper sense. I think he should realise that in any case, whether a eharge against a white person or not, the police invariably try to obtain some admission, some statement, or confession, from the person charged. Naturally, a good deal depends and after the passing of this measure will depend on how that admission or confession from an aboriginal has been obtained.

Mr. Nicklin: That is the point.

Mr. FOLEY: But it must be put to the aboriginal. The police must endeavour to obtain it, otherwise their case is considerably weakened when they come before the court. No pressure can be used, otherwise that would be duress. The judge, in interrogating the aboriginal in chambers with the two counsel present, would be in a position to determine whether the police have used any pressure or duress in obtaining that information.

Mr. Macdonald: A kick in the pants.

Mr. FOLEY: Yes, and possibly something worse. It all depends on the individual who is handling the matter. There are methods of trapping individuals into admission. That is practised very considerably with white people. By a system of interrogation they trap the individual into making an admission and eventually he admits and signs a statement that is used in evidence against him in the court. Those are tactics that are used today sometimes to get admissions, but in the case of an aboriginal we lay it down here in this section that the judge in chambers must be satisfied. That is the measure of protection that will be given to the aboriginal because of the possibility that in some cases they may not be able to know right from wrong. They may not be able to stand up to the interrogation adopted by the police officer. The judge, in considering the matter, will determine whether the admission or confession was obtained by pressure or duress of any kind. If in his opinion it has been so obtained he will report the matter accordingly to the court, and recommend to the court that the confession be not accepted by the court as evidence.

I think in actual practice the hon. member will find when this measure becomes law that it will give a greater chance of penalising guilty aboriginals for offences such as we know have been committed in the past, when they have gone scot-free because of the law as it stood. In my opinion this will be a deterrent upon the aboriginal community as a whole because some of the major crimes that have been committed will be sheeted home.

Mr. Macdonald: Which is the better word "made " or " obtained"~

Mr. FOLEY: I think the word "obtained" is the right word to use in the particular clause as it stands.

Mr. Macdonald: On what do you base that opinion f

Mr. FOLEY: I think that is the right word. I think that wording should remain.

Motion (Mr. Foley) agreed to.

CoMMITTEE.


Clauses 1 to 3, both inclusive, as rea f, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Foley, read a thircl time.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT. Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca-Premier):

I move-'' That the House, at its rising, Jo

adjourn until Tuesday, 2 April.'' Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.

legislative assembly thursday march

Documents