Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 1951

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1872 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

TUESDAY, 6 MARCH, 1951.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Mann, Bris· bane) took the chair at 11 a.m.

QUESTIONS.

PAYMEN'l' OF ANTI-PICKETING FINES.

llr. EV ANS (Mirani) asked the Premier-

'' In reference to the reply given by the Honourable the Treasurer to the pre-vious Honourable Member for Windsor on 9 December, 1948, regarding the police investigation into the anonymous payment of the fines imposed upon Messrs. Healy, Engl::u-t, and J ulius for breaches of the law known as the Anti-Picketing Act-

'' 1. Will he kindly advise whether the police investigations (a) are still pro-ceeding, or (b) have been abandoned or finalised~

'' 2. Will he lay upon the Table of the House the police reports resulting from the investigation in question?''

Hon. E. l\L HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' I and 2. I would refer the hon. member

to the ans>ver I gave to a similar question on 11 October last.''

POSI'l'ION OF MR. ,J. COPLEY.

~tir. AIKENS (Mundingburra) asked the Sec11etary for Labour and Industl-y-

'' 1. Is a J\fT. J. Copley an ofiicer of his department and what are his duties and salary~

'' 2. Will he ascertain if Mr. Copley was at the ofticc of the Principal Electoral Officer on ::\[om1ay, 1, Tuesday, 2, and ~W cdncsday, 3 May, 1950, or on any of those days, an(l if so, what duties was he performing there;''

Hon. A. JONES (Charters Towers) replied-

'' 1. \\'illiam J olm Copley holds appoint-ments as Inspector of :Factories and Shops, lndustri:1l Inspector and Inspector of \Vorkcrs' Accommodation. Present salm-y £728 per annum. ·

'' 2. Monda"·, 1 Mav, 1950, was a public holicl::tv and the Chief Electoral Office was cl'~ c;ed: I kn·e PJ:J.c1c enqniries and have ascertained that Mr. Copley was not at the office of the Prinrip:1l Electoral Oflicer on the dates mentioned.''

SHEEP ST.\TION CREEK BRIDGE, HELIDON.

l\Ir. CHALK Treasurer-

(Lockyer) asked the

''In ~dew of the dangerous nature of Sheep Station Creek bridge, at Helidon, and the ever-increasing road trafiic on the Brisbane-Toowoomba road, have any fresh surveys been carried out this year with a view to proceeding with the erection of a new bridge or the affecting of at least major alterations to the existing struc-ture~''

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane} Teplied-

" Yes. It is proposed to build new bridges over Sheep Station Creek and LoclY under the :Medical ,\cts, 1!13[) to '1948 (22 February).

MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.

MOTION OF DISSENT.

lUr. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Opposition) (11.14 a.m.): I move-

'' That Mr. Speaker's ruling, given on 27 February-that the amendment proposed by me to the Premier's motion was not relevant-be dissented from.''

If you cast your mind back, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that you ruled my amend-ment out of order because it had no relevance to the motion. I submit, with respect, that you were entirely wrong in that ruling.

I propose, first of all, to sketch briefly the background associated with the tabling of the motion and the tabling of the amend-ment. The Premier's motion to which my amendment related provided for tha giving of certain additional powers to the inspector of police who is investigating the wrongdoings

Mr. Speaker's Ruling. (6 MARCH.] Mr. Speal.:e1·'s Ruling. 1873

discovered by the Elections Tribunal in the Bulimba appeal. The object of the motion m1s to facilitate the investigations and to help the police to find the perpetrators of the fraudulent practices at the Bulimba election.

During the course of the debate the Pre· mier stated that upon completion of the police investigations the Elections Act would be amended in such manner as was indicated to be desirable as a result of the investiga-tion. May I point out that my amendment to the Premier's motion contained exactly that provision and the Premier in speaking to his motion mentioned the fact and it is' relevant to this discussion that I should bring that matter out. The Premier's motion left me with the impression that he was still looking at the Bulimba frauds through :t very narrow aperture or with his blind eye to the political telescope. Consequently we desired to widen the scope of the investiga-tion proposed in the Premier's motion.

'rhe important aspec:t of this matter is not the wording of the Premier's motion but its ultimate object. Tho discovery and punish-ment of the offenders is of far less impor-bnce than the rr:sultiug amendment of the Elections Act to reduce the opportunities for fraudulent practicf g at future elections. The Premier virtually admitted the important :~spect of his motion when he indicated that amendments of the Elections Act woulll follow. I ask you to note that particularly again, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition have two other proposals on the business sheet Telating to the Bulimba investigation-the in cl nsion of postal votes an cl the voting in the \Vinclsor electorate-but even if those wen' included, we think that the inquiry would still be too limited for the purposes of a clean-up of electoral malpractices. It is the common and accepted practice of this House to amencl motions, whether Telating to the introduction of Bills or to other matters, in the direction of enlarging their scope. That is all my amendment l}l'Oposed. It provided for a full inquiry into fraudulent pTactices, n s against the very limited inquiry covered 1•0· the PTemier 's motion. Instead of a police inquiry, it proposed an inquiry by a royal commission. I submit that my amendment was quite relevant to the subject matter aml to the object of the Premier's motion.

I would now, Mr. Speaker, refer you to May, which lays down the object of an amendment and says-

" The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to pre-sent to the House a different proposition as an altern'ative to the original question.''

Of course, the question of relevancy comes into the question, otherwise the proposed mnendment would be out of orrlcL An mnemlment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter, but I submit that my amendment •vas in entire keeping with the motion and in no way irrelevant. I have pointed out that its purpose was to increase the scope of the inquiry by setting up rmother form of inquiry different from that proposed in the motion but the amendment was relevant in all respects.

On the subject of the relevancy of an amendment similar to the matter being dis-cussed at the moment, May has this to say at page 395-

,' The Speaker has ruled that to a ques-tion declaring the expediency of establish-ing a tribunal for the purpose of inquir-ing into a definite matter of urgent public importance. . . . ''

This was a matter of urgent public impor-tance-

'' .. which followed the directions of 'Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, an amendment to add another snb-;ject for inquiry 1vould not be relevant.

" I ask you to note that-an amendment to add another subject for inquiry would not be· relevant.

'' .... but an amendment relating to the constitution of the Tribunal has been allowed.''

I should not have quarrelled with you in any way had you ruled irrelevant from my amendment the words ''and the condition of the electoral rolls.'' That was the only new point it introduced. J\Iy amendment .-ms entirely relevant to the original motion and in keeping with the procedure and practice laid down in "Ma;v" and in keeping with the procedure and practice followed in this House.

In fact, we have a ruling of a former Speaker of this House on a point on almost similar lines to the one we have under con-sideration todav. We find that in Votes and Proceedings, J ihs, page 1922, a motion was nJOved anLgonistic to the granting of per-mits. An ainendment was movell, which was on all fours with the amendment moved by myself on Tuesdav last and •vhich you ruled m1t of order, and proposed to substitute a declaration-

'' That the gambling spirit is based upon the desire to gain the fruits of production without exertion'';

and so on. Objection was taken to the amendment as

lJoing ''absolutely irrelevant,'' but Mr. Speaker M.cCormack at that time-

'' was of opinion that it was within the province of the House to deal ·with the amendment. Both motion and amendment had to do with gambling.''

Iu the same way the motion and another amendment dealt with inquiries into certain illegal practices.

'' \Vhile the latter part of the amend-ment ,,-as not relevant, still the House had the right to refuse to express an opinion upon the motion, and might supersede it with an amendment of different import.''

In view of the urgent public importance of the question, instead of giving a ruling him-self he left it to the Honse to make that decision. That would have been a wiser practice for you, Mr. Speaker, to follow on this occasion, because by giving the ruling you did you created a precedent that will limit discussion in this House in future. It was entil·ely contrary to the rules and prac-tices laid down by ''May'' and the rules and practice fDllowed in this House. It was the

1874 Mr. Speaker's Ruling. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

function of this House to decide whether the motion proposed by the Premier or the method proposed by the amendment should be .adopted. I contend that in ruling my amen~ment out. of order you usurped the functiOns of. this Pa~liament. That is why I gave notice of drsagreement with vour ruling. If your . ruling is approved a "very )Jad precedent will be established that will m future burke discussion in this House. \Ve must not forget that rulings given by you arc ac1opted as precedents to be followed by this House in the future. That is why it _is so _particularly important to see that ruhngs given by your good self v-ill not in any way interfere with free discussion in this ChambeT, especially when the matters are of urgent public importance, as the subject matt~r of the motwn and amendment were. In vrcw of that fact I submit the motion because I believe it is dangerous indeed that we should establish as a precedent the ruling you have given on this important question.

JUr. HILEY (Coorparoo) (11.24 a.m.): I rise to second the motion of clissent moved by the Lender of the Opposition.

At the outset I want to observe that it must surely be the duty of every hon. mem-ber and every person who occupies the high office of Speaker of this House to see that good order and discipline are maintained in the proceedings of this Assembly and that nothing is clone that tends to take. away from this AssemlJly its elwracter as a Ho.use of deliberation, for if the course or tendency of practice in this House ever has the effect of reducing it merely to be a House of record rather than a House of deliberation then it woulc1 cease to be 'a Legislative As~emblv in the truest sense of the word. "

I do not propose to examine the merits of the amen(1mcnt. There is one issue-your ruling narrows it to that-and that is the question: >Yas the amendment relevant? It was puTely on the ground of relevance that ;-ou rnlc(l it out of order. On an examina-tion of the question of relevance, let us study the necessity for the original motion anc1 its }JUrpose. Every member will agree that the nccessitv faT the motion arose from certain prohibitions containecl in sections of the Elections Act and the Criminal Code, which forbade the breaking of seals on packages except in accordance· with certain procedure. Although I differed on the actual method the Gover_nment proposed for authorising the hreakmg of the senls on the packages, there can. be no c1oubt. th~t the purpose of the matron was to Justify and empower the breaking of the seals.

Let us have a look at the amendment and see whethe_r it dea~t with an entirely dif-ferent subJect or with the basic purpose of the _motion that was before the House. The motwn of the Premier, I ask the House to ?bserve, would have empowered the break-wg o! the seals _on ~he packages in question, that IS to say, It did not deal merely with the seals of the Bulimba packages but also the packages of the general election and the two by-elections. In exactly those terms the ~me:r;tdm:nt was directed to the scope of mqmry mto the same general election 'and the

two by-elections. There was no fundamental change in the orientation of the amendment· it c?mplied with the purpose of the original ~otwn. _To distinguish the changes n~herent m . the amendment compared with the motwn, we find that the amend-ment sought to alter the nature of the iu_qu~ry, to n:a~e it an inquiry by a com-nns_swn as distmct . fro~ an inquiry by a police officer; and It did propose to widen the nature of the inquiry as well.

I agree with w~Iat my leader said that we could not have objected had you ~truck out a few words from his amendment-the proposal to widen the inquiry into the state of the rolls. In that case we must have bowed to your ruling, but when you struck out the whole of the amendment on the grounds of irrelevance, holding that it was a different matter-when it was directed to the same fundamental purpose and it did not widen the territory of the inquiry at all-we coultl not agree. It merely sought to alter the method of the maki;1g of the inquiry. I am hGund to say that If such an amendment is not relevant, any member is entitled to sny what amendment could he relevant. If the purpose is to be unaltered but the method is to be varied surely that must be accepted as a competent amendment~ That is the whole weight of the Opposition argument.

You, Mr. Speaker, appreciate that in mov-ing this motion we have no personal feelings towards yourself; >YC 'are exercising what >YC feel is in the interests of the institution of Parliament-our right to put on record and rlivide the House on a question ·whethe1· the ruling you have given, which will be fol-lowed by men who succeed you, represents the correct and proper procedure to govern the future conduct of Parliament.

I have kept away from the merits of the amendment. You would be quite right in holding that I was irrelevant if I attempted to do so, but on the question of the purpose of the amendment and the dis-tinction I have made, that there >Yas no change in the fundamental purpose of the amendment hut a variation in the method of approach, I submit the requirement of relc .. .-ance is ahundantly satisfied.

I ask the House to o hserve this: if the amendment moved by the Opposition, which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order as irrele•·ant, had been carried, the police could have macle the investigation they sought .at exactly the same time and with no delay factor; they could have obtained the informa-tion they sought under the very amendment you said was irrelevant.

I submit in view of these facts, Mr. Speaker, you were mist.aken in ruling the amendment was irrelevant and I hope that when the House is tested it will not be pnt down on the record of this Parliament to guicle succeeding Parliaments that such a motion, couched in such terms, could ever he properly held to be irrelevant.

Hon. E. J.U. HANLON (Ithaca-Premier) ( 11.31 a.m.) : I deplore the fact that when moving this motion the Leader of the Opposi-tion ha cl to open by saying that I said some-thing in moving the original motion that I

Mr. Speaker's Ruling. [6 MARCH.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling. 1875

never did say. I cannot understand why any-body with a case to make in this House can-not stick to the truth. The Leader of the Opposition said that when m,oving the motion I said the Elections Act would have to be altered.

:illr. Nicklin: On the discussion on the resolution.

i\Ir. RANI, ON: I did not. That was said in reply, and when the hon. gentleman moved his amendment he did not have my reply. I did not reply before the hon. gentleman moved his amendment: he is endeavouring to mislead the House and the people. It is typical of the attitude of the hon. gentleman that has been his conduct since he came into such close association with the Liberal Party. (Opposition laughter.)

lUr. SPEAKER: Order!

1\Ir. HANLON: I was prepared to take the word of the Leader of the Opposition in this House until this last year or two-since his association with the old Tory Party.

The hon. member for Coorparoo, in second-ing the motion, said that he could not under-stand your ruling out of order an .amend-ment that aimed at doing exactly the same thing as the motion, but doing it in a differ-ent way. That is not what happened. In actual fact the amendment moved by the L,

1876 Mr. Speaker's Ruling. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

he made in admitting he was trying to pre-vent the police from investigating these matters.

~!r. lliULLER (Fassifern) (11.38 a.m.) : It is my bounden duty to support the Leader of the Opposition in the motion he has moved this morning. In fairness to you, Mr. Speaker, I admit that it is your general prac-tice to adopt an impartial attitude in these matters, but I want to say that in this par-ticular case I feel you made a grave mistake.

In arriving at a decision on matters of this kind, we haYe to view the whole facts of the case. The very object of the Prt>mier 's motion was that the Government 1vere prepared to go to any extreme to have the matter cleared up. I think that the chairman of any meeting has a duty, when a motion is submitted, to consider any amendment submitted to him. I refer to any amendment that migh have for its purpose the improving of the motion, and any such amendment should be acceptable to the Chair. In this case, the Premier made a special point of attack and had in mind the clearing up of the matter. His motion was to make available to the police certain information and documents. The Leader of the Opposition felt at that time-and I believe rightly so-whilst admitting the wis-dom of the Premier's motion, that it did not gn far enough.

The Premier saic1 that the amendment moved by my Leader was a direct neg.ative of his motion. It was not a direct nPgative at all, and a little later the Opposition clearly dem•lllstrated that fact because thev did not Yote against the Premier's motion:

J!r. Hanlon: Y on read "Hansard."

Mr. ?!IULLER: We did not vote against the motion, but we felt that it did not go far enough. We felt that the Premier was since,re in his intention to clean up this mattm· propeTly, but ht> should have been prepared to go to any extent at all. The Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposi-tion generally felt that the appointment of a royal commission would disclose all the infor-mation that might be desired. In other words, we felt that if the nigger was not in the woodpile the Premier referred to he might be in another one, and that the appointment of a royal commission would enable this Parlia-ment to investigate eYery possible angle of the ease.

I will now deal with the question of the relevance of the amendment. Surely you ~·ourself, Mr. Speaker, after examining the merits and the demerits of the case, can come to no other conclusion than that the amendment was really an improvement on the motion! Therefore, I feel that you had no alternative but to accept it.

l repeat that it does not give members of the Opposition any great pleasure to dis-agree with your ruling because I feel that generally speaking you are quite honest in any decision you make, but in this particular ·ease, after reviewing the whole of the cir-eumstances, I think you will agree that you made a great mistake.

Hon. J. LARCOJIBE (Rockhampton-Attorney-General) (11.42 a.m.): There is not much to add to what the Premier has said, but I should like to make a few brief observations.

First of all, in support of his case the Leader of the Opposition quoted a statement that was allegedly made by the Premier. The Premier denied making such a statement but even if he did make it, Mr. Speaker, you are not concerned about a statement made by the Premier. You are concerned only with the terms of the motion and of the amendment. The Leader of the Opposition opened up very weakly in support of his motion when he said that you should be influenced by some-thing that the Premier said.

Further, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a common practice to amend motions, but he quoted no Queensland authority. For instance, he did not quote our own Standing Orders, which lay down that a vital necessity in an amendment is relevance. In order to avoid wanderings and interminable discussions and irrelevancies we must stick to the point, otherwise we should be here for manY months longer than other-wise. In order ·to have clarity of thought and clarity of reasoning there must be rele-vance, and there was no relevance in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition quoted an authority that was entirely against his case. The authority that he quoted from May was to the effect that an amendment to add another subject to a motion would not be relevant. He is quite right when he says that but that is against his case, because he attempted to add another subject to the motion. In the first place he wanted to appoint a royal C?mn;ission and se~ondly to carry out an inqmry mto the Electwns Act. He therefore wanted to add more than one other subject to the motion, and I contend that Mav is ag.ainst the very case that he quoted. •

Another argument, one used by the hon. member for Coorparoo, was that if you had cut out a few words from the amendment, Mr. Speaker, they would not have objected. You are not responsible for the blundering methods of the Opposition-no duty is cast upon you to take out any words, if that should be necessary. That is not your duty at all, yet hon. members opposite would come to you and say in effect, "\Ve have blundered and you should pull us out of our difficulty.'' They should know the Standing Orders. That is their responsibility. In moving an amend-ment it is their obligation to put in the right words, to have the right amendment, and to observe the rule of relevance.

The Premier put the matter in a nutshell when he said that the Opposition should have moved a separate motion dealing with the entirely different factors. After the result of the Wa,rrego by-election I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposi-tion would have withdrawn his motion of dissent because their only object in moving it today is to keep alive the Bulimba election

Mr. Speaker's Ruling. [6 MARCH.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling. 1877

incident. In view of the result in the Warrego by-election, the overwhelming defeat of the Country Party candidate--

li'Ir. SPEAKER: Order!

li'Ir. LARCOMBE: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I believe that your ruling was sound in Standing Order law, common sense in nature, and well reasoned in interpretation, and I am surprised that hon. members opposite should take exception to it. If you accepted their advice there would be no end to discussion; it would be interminable. There would ·be absence of relevance with the consequential roaming over ground remote and foreign to a motion. Tha.t would be undesirable from the viewpoint of the House.

Let us have a look at the amendment and analyse the matter a little further just to ~"" what the amendment had to say and what the motion had to say and apply the factors of relevance, analysis, com1Jarision, and contrast. The motion says-

'' The Clerk of this House to produce to ',nt Inspector of Police all ballot papers

now in the custody of that Clerk which were used by voters under Section 70 of the Elections Acts, 1915 to 1948, at the general eleetion held in the year 1950, and at the by-elections for the elec.toral dis-tricts of Ipswich and Kurilpa held in the year 1949 and the returns made by the several returning officers showing the voters who use cl those ballot papers.''

The motion was clear and definite, with an objective. The amendment proposed that a royal commission of inquiry be appointed first to inwstigate malpractices and corrupt practices at the last elections and the by-elections for Ipswich and Kmilpa held in 1949, and then the condition of the electoral rolls, and then to make recommendations regarding the changes that should be made in electoral legislation and administration in order to remove or reduce such malpractice> or corrupt practices at future elections. There we see the gulf between the amend-ment and the motion, the great disparity, the absolute irrelevance, the absence of relevance altogether. If hon. members opposite had been alive to their own interests, to the Standing Orders and Parliamentary procedure, they would have moved a separate motion. That 1vas their simple duty, their simple objective-a separate resolution and they should not have tried to tie their objective up to the motion moved by the Premier. Tlte amendment dealt with matters remote, mat-ters that would take months and months to inquire into.

And time would have expired when action could be taken against any offenders that might have been discovered in connection with the Bulimba incident. That is an im-portant point-the time in which action could have been taken would have expired. No effective action could have been taken.

I submit on the ground of lack of rele-vance and because of the soundness of your ruling on constitution or Standing D:rder law, and the common sense governing the

proceedings of the House, the motion should be rejected. The amendment contained new principles with very wide effect.

\V e know that debates for some time past have been intensified in this House with one object and one object alone, that of keeping alive the Bulimba incident. That is why this motion was moved, not to show Mr. Speake1• that your ruling was wrong, but to keep that incident alive. Could anyone who listened to the Leader of the Opposition honestly believe that ;vour ruling was wrongW Of course not. His remarks were paltry. He tried to bolster up the motion to bring it before the public in order that the incident I referred to should be kept before the public. We are not concerned with political propaganda, and if hon. members opposite want to engage in politiral propaganda, let them do it outside the Chamber and not make Parliament the forum for the by-elections coming on in Bulimba and Kedron. Of course, when they do come on the Opposition will meet with the same fate as thev met with in the Warrego by-election. "

GoYernment Members: Hear, hear!

lUr. AIKE:N"S (Mundingburra) (11.52 a.m.): Whatever idealistic illusions I may hnve had about the conduct of Parliament when I came into this Chamber seven years ngo were promptly and rudely shattered by wh.at I saw in this House. I believed in those clays that Parliament might be conductecl along the lines of custom and precedent, and according to the standards set down not only here but in the House of Commmw. I s·Jon found, howeYer, that any established pre-c:edeul lhaL n1.ight Le used ag~tinst the Govern-ment 1vas rudely swept nside whenever it suited the iutere,,t of the Gowrnment to have it swept aside.

::\Ir. SPEAJ{ER: Order! lUr. IngTmn: That is a reflection on the

Chair.

:lir. SPEAKER: I was going t0 correct the hon. member for Mnuclingburra but an hon. member has tried to help him and I will therefore let him go on.

Jir. AIKENS: I am afraid you will have to correct me later.

Jir. SPEAKER. Order! If the Standing Orders are infringed I \Yill correct the hon. member later.

l'\Ir. AIKE.XS: ·I am not particularly fnssy about tying myself to precedent because men who do not follow precedent, but who make pTeeedent, make history. There is another hon. member in this Chamber who believes as I believe and has seen, as I have seen, precedents made .and precedents broken with impunitv and almost with complete abamlonment. • The duty of a Speaker or the dut:r of a chairman of an:r gathering, is to decide whether motions and later on amend-ments, when moved, are relevant or not. I naturally thought when I came into this Chamber that if a motion was moved-usually it is moved from the Government side of the House-and the Opposition move an amend-ment, ~fr. Speaker would set himself out t()

1878 Mr. Spealcer's Ruling. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Speaker's R~ding. [6 MARCH.) State Transpo1·t, &c., Bill. 1879

nm1 the amendment'? That was a decision l>.'· a learned judge that the Bulimba elec-tion v. as void because 11 votes were tainted.

JUr. Aikens: Why not call them frauds? ~fr. BURROWS: When I talk of fraud,

I think of the hon. member, so I try to avoid it. The learned judge voided the whole of the Bulimba election because it ~>·as tainted in a very small part; in his opinion, by 11 Yotes. But the hon. member said you, Mr. 1-ipeaker, were \Hong in rejecting the amend-ment; that you should have acted as the p_rivate secretary or adviser of the Opposi-twn and expunged the tainted part. keeping the untainted part. That was the slim total of the argument put fonvard by the hon. mPmher for Coorparoo. I know he has been taught the direct opposite of that but politi-eal expediency often makes one' forget the iclcnls one so fondly cherishes.

The ten:1inology of the Leader of the Opposition needs a little brushing up. He referred to a matter of urgent public import-nnre, but I submit the hon. gentleman was more concemed with urgent political importance, especially in view of the fact that a by-election was to be held in a few days from the date on which he gave notice to flis~g.ree with .the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Pohtrral expediency dictated that and not public welfare or its importance to the public of Queensland.

In his speech the hon. member for Fassi-fern sai.d that he wanted to go further but I ~ubmi! that you, Mr. Speaker, in your l1ehberatrons, would be influenced and guided :o ~ certain extent by the atmosphere and the mcHlents that prompted the motion. After nil, it was a matter that directly concerned a report being made to this House. There was a request from a police officer that he be granted further powers and authority. We knew t~at the granting of that authority was somethmg that would not be done without the grPatest reluctance. The decision to grant that power was not likely to be treated ~ightly by any sane .Government. In agree-mg to grant that pohce officer the powers he requested, we were going far enough. Hon. members opposite said, "'\Ve want to open up nil the ballot papers and throw them all round the gardens of Parliament House and make n complete joke of democracy.'' Hitler did the same thing when he burnt the Reichstag.

lUr. MULLER: I rise to a point of order. Th~ hon. member for Port Curtis said that I wanted to open all the ballot papers and scatter them about Parlinment House grounds. 'Chat is ridiculous and I ask that the remark ],e withdrawn.

JUr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mem-member for Port Curtis must accept the l'xpl::mation of the hon. member for Fassifern.

:ur. BURROWS: It will give me pleusure to accept the hon. member's denial ],ecause my experience of hon. members ?Jlposite has. been . that if you give them an m_ch th''Y will fimsh up by taking a mile. \\hen the hon. member said that he wanted to g?. further I gathered that for political c'xpemency they would go to the North Pole. Ye:;, I accept his denial. The point is that

1951-3R

on the impulse the Opposition were more concerned about political expediency than anything else and they decided to oppose something. They shut up when they saw the wisdom of the Government's motion, but they completely somersaulted and as the debate proceet1cd one would have thought that the Opposition were moving the motion which, as I said, on first impulse they so actively opposed. If hon. members doubt my word let them rear1 ' 'Hansard. ''

The hon. member for Coorparoo said that this House should not be a House of cor-rection but should be one nf legislation or deliberation. I ~·espectfully suggest that during last week the Opposition did their damnedst to turn this House into a house of inquisition.

Questiou-th8.t Mr. Speaker's ruling be dissented from (Mr. Nicklin 's motion)-put; and the House divided:-

AYES, 29. Mr. Aikens

All pass Chalk Coburn Deck er Dewar Evans E'wan Gaven Heading Hiley Jones, V. E. Kerr Low Luckins Morris

Mr. Muller Munro Nicholson Nicklin Noble Pizzey Plunkett Sparkes Taylor. H. B. Watson Wordsworth

Tellers: Mr. Bjelke-Petersen

Roberts, L. H. S.

NOES 38. Mr. Brosnau

Brown Burrows Byrne Clark Collins Crowley Davis

,, Devries Dr. Dittmer Mr. Donald

Duggan Dunstan Farrell Foley Ga!r Graham Gunn H::~nlon Hi! ton

AYE.

PAIR.

Mr. Ingram Jesson Jones, A. Keyatta Larcombe Marsden McCathie Moo re Moo res Power Rasey Riordan Roberts, F. E. Smith Whyte Wood

Tellers: Mr. Taylor, J. R.

Turner

No. Mr. Mclntyre Mr. Walsh

Resolved in the negative.

STATE TRANSPORT FACII"ITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the chair.)

Debate resumed from 1 March (see page 1871) on Mr. Dnggan's motion-

'' That it is desirable that a Dill be introduced to amend the State Transport Facilities Acts, 1946 to 1947," in certain particulars. '' lUr. EV ANS (Mirani) (12.15 p.m. l : I

listened to the explanation of the Bill by the :Minister on Tuesday last with great interest

1880 State Transport Facilities [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

and very much disappointment. After deal· ing with local authorities, he said that it was proposed to make certain alterations affecting them that in my opinion amounted to a savage alteration in the existing position, giv-ing the Commissioner of Transport power to destroy a semi-governmental body that has really madtJ it possible for the State Trans-port Commission to exist. There is no doubt that if there were no local authorities there would be no roads for the Transport Com-mission to levy charges upon. Of course, hon. members opposite will say that the Main Hoads Commission has built the roads, but I can tell them that 136,000 miles of road in Queensland are financed, built, maintained and controlled solely by local authorities, and only 19,000 miles by the Main Hoads Com-mission. That is the position and there is no getting away from it. The local authorities in Queensland are responsible for most of the financial responsibilities in respect of roads in Queensland and even in respect of the 19,000 miles that I mentioned they carry part of the financial responsibility. Even in the case of those roads controlled by the Main Hoads Commission up to 50 per cent. of the maintenance charge devolves upon local authorities, according to the origin of traffic and according to the decision of the Main Roads Commission itself. We find today that the Transpo1t Commission is endeavouring to annihilate the very local authorities that have made it possible fnr the Transport Com-mission to exist. The very local authoritirs that built the roads or a·re responsible for the biggest amount of money involved are now told by the Transport Commission that the commission proposes to impose taxes on local authorities for running over the very roads outside of the respective shires con-cerned that the local authorities built them-selves.

Let me turn for a moment to my own elec-torate of Mirani and to the city of Mackay. I know that the hon. member for Mackay is not concerned so much with what goes on in his electorate as he is with delving into mat-ters in my electorate. However let us take the position of the Mackay o'ity Council; the Mackay Harbour is in the Pioneer shire and 3 miles from the city boundary. 'Let us suppose that a boat brings material for the Mackay City Council to the Mackay harbour. I am sure that the Trans-port Commission will not suggest that this material should be railed into the citv of Jlilackay, that it should be lifted froni' the holds into milway trucks anu brought into the city by means of railway, in other words that it should be handled t•Yice.

If this Bill is passeu in its present form, as outlined by the Minister, any pipe", timber or goods that a local authority in the Mackay area buys must be subjected to the tax fixed by the Commission. Most local authority materials are very hard to procure, and when they are pro-cured they are shipped to the nearest port of call. That being so, the local authorities in the Mackay district will be compelled to pay transport fees on these goods. The whole of the metal that the Mackay City Council

uses in the construction and maintenance of its roads will come in the same class. It will also apply to the Pioneer Shire Council, which buys its metal from the very efficient quarry at the harbour and will consequently pay transport charges over the roads through the city into No. 2 Division. Is that sensible?! Knowing the Minister as I do-and from the discussions I have had with him I have always found him courteous and fair-I think my remarks will appeal to him.

I am giving the actual position based on the statement made by the Minister. The Minis-ter said that the Wambo Shire Council's depot in Dalby would be protected from the imposi-tion of road tax. If he is going to protect that council, what about these local authori-ties I have mentioned~ And I am not half finished. In the Mackay city area is situated the Rocla pipe works. As everyone. knows, drainage is an important problem m con-structing roads. All the pipes used . by the Pioneer, Sarina, Mirani and Nebo shues are bought from the Rocla works. Is the Trans-port Commission going to impose another tax on these local authorities in that respect, when it is well known that the only efficient way by which these pipes can be handled is by taking delivery of them at the Hocla worlis and transporting them direct to the job~ It will be seen that this Bill will impose trans-port charges on every local authority embark-ing on drainage work. It is scandalous.

I am only speaking for my own electorate but I cannot see the Minister continuing this clause in the Bill as outlined by him when he is aware that it will imipose additional charges on local authorities. Local authorities that build the roads have the right, if it is economic and efficient to do so to cart their material on any roaus witho~t any charges. The ~inister, if he thinks fit, could imp?se ~, nommal licence fee. When I say '' nommal I mean nominal-a small one.

Let me go further. Not one penny of the funds collected by the Commissioner of Trans-port is returned to the local authorities other than possibly a small p~oportion th_rough subsidies. They all go mto Consohdatecl Revenue. The Government are not satisfied with being in a position to levy a tax on people who use the roads, for they are now attempting to tax local authorities that con-struct and maintain them. The whole thing is unjust, inequitable, aml unfair, and I can-not think the Minister will allow the Bill to go through in its present form. He will see how unfairly it will operate in the cases I mentioned. 'The Act itself dis-criminates in the matter of primary pro-r1ucts under a discriminatory section inserted by another Minister, and I know how difficult it will be for the present Minister to excise it. The Act discriminates against sugar. While primary products are protected in their haulage for distances up to 15 miles from the marketing centre, every ton of sugar that is carted on the roads pays Hd. a mile in tax. I know how difficult it would be to alter it, now that the Act is in operation. It was hrought in-not by the present Minister-to hurt certain people in the industry.

State Tran.spm·t Facilities [6 MARCH.] Acts Amendment Bill. 1881

The CHAIRJIAN: Order!

Jir. EV ANS: I know , how difficult it would be to alter the Act and put sugar on the same footing as other products. Sugar from two mills is being carted by road, causing considerable damage, and the com-mission is reaping the financial benefit from the tax; not one penny of that money goes hack to the councils that have to keep the roads in order. Money is paid out of Con-solidated Revenue by way of subsidies, and a small portion of that money may go back.

Here is a commission that has power to charge transport fees on vehicles using the roads, and if it decides to put a charge on the people who are building and maintaining them it will be doing one of the most das-tardly things that were ever done in Queens-land.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) (12.27 p.m.): Like my Leader, I should like to compliment the Minister on the way in which he presented this Bill. Of course, there is always the danger that a Bill that may appear very simple may contain some import-nut principles or variations of the law. There are some matters I intend to bring forward on which I should like enlightenment and which I hope will receive consideration from the Minister. I believe the Act was designed more or less for the area in and around Brisbane, within a radius of 200 or 300 miles, hut I believe it should have provided for the varied conditions to be met with in other areas. In other words, perhaps it would be better if Queensland were zoned and differ-ent conditions laid down for the different zones. I do not think there are any road hauliers in and around the electorate of Whit-sunday and surrounding electorates. That applies to Mackay, Proserpine, Collinsville and Bowen, with the exception of those mentioned bv the hon. member for Mirani who are haul-ing sugar, and an occasional timber lorry. I know that sugar is not going to be affected, because the Minister assured us to that effect on Thursday last. Perhaps the main reason why we have not road hauliers is that the vehicles could not stand up to the road con-ditions that obtain. Here in Brisbane the people are well catered for. If they desire to visit the beaches they have plenty of facilities in the excursion trains and busses. In country districts it is a different matter entirely. The farther from Brisbane you go, the more difficult it becomes.

"llr. F. E. Roberts: Some country towns are completely sewered.

1Ur. LLOYD ROBERTS: Sewerage has nothing to do with carrying passengers or anything like that. If the hon. member wants to go for a swim down a sewer he can do so. Country people have to make their own fun.

The CHAIR~IAN: Order! ~Ir. LLOYD ROBERTS: I sincerely

trust that the Minister does not intend to interfere with that fun in any shape or form. The Minister said that the Bill will limit this freedom of action to members of the

O\Yner 's own household, in other words to those who liYe in his house. He proceeded to say that there was no intention of prohibit-ing an operator of a 30-cwt. utility or a 1-tou truck from taking his family to the seaside for a picnic. This is rather strict bec.ause if the owner of a vehicle is to be limited to people of his own household it will create, shall I say, a class preference, because the majority of people who would be travelling in the back of a utility truck would be persons who did not own a vehicle. It would be very hard tying down the owner of such a vehicle to carrying only members of his own family or people living in his house. Assume I have a brother living in Brisbane and my famliy of five or six arrive from thP North. My brother decides to take my family down to Southport for the day in the back of his utility truck. Under this amending Bill he would not be allowed to take them down because my family are not living in his house. Taking it a step fur-ther: assume that a man has a daughter who is keeping company with a young man. Such a person would be breaking the law if he takes this young man down to Southport in his utility. I suggest the Minister give the problem greater consideration. Perhaps he has a solution for it. There are also fishing parties to be taken into consideration. A man perhaps picks up three or four of his mates, or it may be seven or eight-! do not know the limit but I remember some-thing being said the other day about five or six. He takes them to the coast in his utility for a little fishing but under the Bill he will be allowed to take only persons in his own household. I presume that is the interpreta-tion to be placed on the clause but probably the Minister will enlighten us further on the matter.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the transport of sporting teams. This is more pronounced in the country than in cities. In the country we have picnic teams travelling 30 or 40 miles. The old well-side utility carried a cricket team very comfort-ably, three on the front seat and four each side of the back, and thus these cricketers were able to enjoy a game of cricket on Sunday. I have had much to do with amateur theatricals in various centres for raising funds for the Ambulance Brigade. The people concerned travelled in the back of a utility. In fact, on occasions they have been transported in the ambulance. This Bill will bring these vehicles into line for taxation.

Another matter that comes t0 my mind very strongly is that of the transport of certain lodges. Only 10 days ago the Proser-pine Buffalo Lodge wished to pay a regalia visit to Mackay, a distance of 96 miles. Tlwy began to negotiate for the hiring of a rail-motor and found that its cost was £37. 'l'here were only about 20 going on the trip and they could not induce the bowlers or the golfers to come into the party so the rail-motor idea was abandoned and they did not attempt to make the journey by road. I really believe that some effort might be made to meet such a case. It would hm·e heen a different matter had trains been run-ning ancl this party had been going down

1882 State Transport Facilities [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

in opposition to the rail service. Hon. mem-bers can appreciate the fact that a cost of approximately £2 a head is ridiculous, especi-ally when perhaps one of their own fellows would have driven them down and back at no cost whatever. I sincerely hope that the Minister will enlighten us fully on the atti-tude he intends to adopt in the matter.

The hon. member for Mirani covered most of the ground in respect of local .authorities. The Minister said that it was proposed to restrict the ,free movement of goods by local authorities and he further said that there would be no interference with operators within a local-authodty area. I ask the Minister to give fuller consideration to the proposed amendment before bringing it into fore~. I do not think he need be particularly afra1d that any of the local authorities in an~ around :\'l:ackay :'"ill make a trip to Bnsbane to get snpphes because they would find difficulty in driving a truck do-wn empty, let alone taking home a load.

;>.'[any local authorities, to ge·t anything done at all, must go through other local-authority areas and the hon. member for ::\1irani men-tioned that the Mackay City Council had to go through the Pioneer shire to get into Mackay and that the Pioneer shire had to go through one of its divisions to reach another. I put it to the Minister that cer-tain shire councils, such as Mirani, Broad-sound, Nebo, and Proserpine .are entitled to reach their nearest port. It may be a mat-ter of the Broadsound Shire Council's need-ing goods for repairs, and Mackay is the nearest city on the north although the dis-tances between Broadsound and Rockhamp-ton and Broadsound and Mackay are similar. If the Broadsound Shire Council wanted to bring equipment for repair into Mackay, its trucks would have to pass through the Sarina and Pioneer shires to get to Mackay.

Mr. Sparkes: And under this Bill you have to pay a tax.

JUr. LLOYD ROBERTS: That is how I see it. Perhaps the Minister might enlighten m~ further. Proserpine is only a bout 45 m1les from Bowen and the connecting road is impassable at present and has been so for years. Work is beginning and in a few ;veaTs there may be a good road theTe. Part of. that 45 miles traYerses the \lilangaratta shne and the Bowen shire to reach the sea-port. I suggest to the Minister that if he intend~ _to continue this penalising of local authonbes perhaps there ~will be a nominal charge as the hon. member for Mirani sug-gested or })Crhaps in his wisdom he will set up a radius of lOO miles or 200 or 300 miles.

That would obviate the necessity for local authorities to keep within their own boun-daries; in other words, it would enable them to cart their own supplies from the coast or the nearest city.

I should also like from the Minister some clarification of the position of country resi-dents and farmers. I know it has been the practice to allow farmers to convey their own goods without the payment of a fee and I am not referring now particularly to' perish-able goods. I believe toot there have been

no restrictions to prevent farmers from taking home such things as a couple of drums of benzine, and I should like to ask the Minister whether that will still be so. I know that he mentioned the case of a builder who conveyed materials that he said were for the building of his own home, which was sold as soon as it was finished, but the posi-tion of a man who has a property in the country is entirely different. He may want to cart benzine or something of that kind to his farm. I ask the Minister to give this matter eveTy consideration and to do what he can for the people in the country. They haYe to suffer enough h.ardships at the present time without having to bear any more.

Another matter with which I desire to deal is the remoYal of furniture in the country, and in bringing this matter up I am laying no blame whatever on the Trans-port Commission. As a matter of fact, I have approoched the commission on several occasions about the removal of furniture, and on each occasion have been received very courteously and have had my requests granted. However, the commission should l:Jy llown more definitely to its representative in the country-the Police Department-what e·m and what cannot be done in the various areas. I will cite a case that, to the best of my knowledge, did not come before the com-mission but was handled by a country police station. An old couple were living about four or five miles outside Koumala .and the husband became bedridden as a result of a stroke. They wishell to move into Mackay. A firm of carriers in Mackay named Ras-mussens have a very good service under which they drive out to a home, pack the furniture, put it on .a lorry, take it to the new home, and unload it. This would have been a very convenient method for this old couple, but unfortunately the carrier could not obtain a permit to remove the furniture. No doubt the matter was handled by the Police Depart-ment; I do not think for one moment th.at it came before the Transport Commission. The result was that this old couple had to pack their own furniture, get a local man to cart it four or five miles into Koumala, rail it to Mackay, and then get a Mack.ay carter to collect it at the railway station and deliver it to their new home. I know that the Transport Commission is very sym-pathetic in matters such as that .and, in addition, the fees it would receive are an extra source of revenue to the commission. I ask the Minister, therefore, to lay down ha rcl an cl fast rules so that country police stations can have the necessary power to de.al v:ith the transport of furniture and similar matters.

I make those suggestions in a constructive spirit, sincerely hoping that the Minister will 1Rke notice of them, and I look forward with interest to his comments.

Jir. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (12.45 p.m.) : This Bill strengthens the opinion I have long held with regard to the transport of this State. Last year when I spoke on the Estimates for this department I pointed out that the railways and the railwaymen were being offcrell up for sacrifice on the

State Transport Facilities [6 MARCH.] Acts Amendment Bill. 1883

altar of the big road-transport companies, and this Bill malces it perfectly clear that the small road operators, local authorities and others, are also going to be offered up for sacrifice on the altar to big road-trans-port companies in this State. The object of this Bill-after we cut away the sugar-coat-ing of the pill-is simply for bolstering the already swelling profits of the big monopolis-tic road-transport companies, such as Luya Julius, Western Transport, Pollard, and others. In the interests of the people of Queensland, let us determine fm ourselves whether we should bolster up the profits of these big companies.

Today we find that the roads of this State, particularly the bitumen and concrete roads radiating from the capital and the big towns, are being torn up and ruined almost entirely by the operations of these big companies with their huge trucks. In America today they have special police on the roads to grapple with this problem that is being caused by the huge road trucks, and if anyone cares to go to the Parliamentary Library he will read· in some of the American magazines cases in which these huge trucks with their loads weigh up to 70 and 80 tons. He will see that they get up to all sorts of devices and tricks in order to dodge the road-transport police. \Ve have more or less reached that stage here, except that I do not think that the big trucks in Queensland have to do any dodging. They load up their trucks to any limit and drive along the highways, cutting them up and ruining them with impunity.

That is a serious statement to make; let us see whether we have facts to support it. I am not going to rely on any written evidence or any CYidcnce by word of mouth, but if any hon. member disagrees with what I am saying now, let him go out on to the main road between here and Toowoom ba any time of the day and night. Let him drive an ordinary car. IJet him ride behind some of these big transport trucks. Not only do they think that they have the right to cut up the roads, but they think they have the right to the sole use of the roads.

JUr. Low: A monopoly.

~1r. AlKENS: A monopoly, as my friend so pertinently interjects. These big trucks ride along the crown of the road, they take up the whole of the road and defy all trans-port laws, nnd get a>my with it. They keep behind them a long string of privately-driven vehicles, Yehicles driven by people who, in the main, pay the tax for the construction of the roads, the very roads that the big trucks arP destroying. There is a long trail of printely-clriYen cars like the tail of a kite, but if any one of the privately-driven cars endeavours to get round any of the big trucks where the road ma)- ,,·iden a little, ilwariably the driver of the big truck, having seen in his rmr-Yision mirror the attempt by the private owner to get round his huge vehicle by going round to the right, that is, on the concct driying sicle, will pull over to that side of the road too, to impede his passage.

:Jir. Sparkes: Especially if there is a guide post there to crush him against it.

l\'Ir. AIKENS: The hon. member for Aubigny says that if there is a guide post he will pull out in order to crush the small 'ehicle against the post.

Murder will be clone on the roads by these big transport vehicles. We have a duty as legislators to ask why it is that these big transport vehicles get away with it. We know that their drivers drive to the point of exhaustion. You see them coming to the boarding houses at 11 or half past 11 o'clock at night on the point of exhaustion, and get-ting up again at half past 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, after snatching a few hours' sleep, and getting away again. Have a look at these men, and see for yourselv

1884 State Tmnspo1·t Facilities [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

'flte CHAIRMAN: Order!

l\Ir. DUGGAN: I withdraw if the hon. member does not care what I think, then I will think the same. At all times, my thoughts are underlined by the statements l make.

I have a very high respect for the Aus-tralian Railways Union, although on many occasions we have had points of disagree-ment. On many occasions our disagreements have been such as to lead to disputes which have caused a good d0al of inconvenience to the State and financial loss to the Govern-ment and the members of the union. In my dealings with the responsible members of the union, I have found in every case in which they come to me with matters of importance to their union or their members, or the State as a whole, they have presented some factual evidence in support of their claims. I feel sure that the hon. member is using this occa-sion, as he does almost every occasion, to engage in some propaganda, and that the union will dissociate itself from the entirelY irresponsible statements he made today. It is true that the hon. member is gifted with the use of >vords but he is also gifted with the tendency to exaggerate to the point of al.Jsmdity. He carries his statements to such a limit that those of us who have been in the Chamber for some time discount almost everything he says because of his tendency to make false accusations so frequently and when he makes an allegation based on factual evidence, because of his proneness to exag-geration, are sceptical of it_

No special concession is given to the trans-port operators of this State. They are free to come along to me as Minister for Trans-port, or to the Premier or any responsible Minister of the Crown, just as other sections of the community; but they have not come along nearly as frequently as members .of the Australian Railways Union or other sections of industry- My office has been relatively free from visits from road-trans-port operators, because the powers laid down are so clearly defined in the Act and so sen-sibly administered that there is little cause for approach to the State Transport Com-mission office or to the Minister on matters affecting their industry.

The hon. member was guilty of arn;nt non-sense when he talked about truck dnvers as heing potential murderers and went as far aB to charge them with murder-forcing motorists against guide posts on the road. I go to Toowooml>a and return every week and I say it would be the exception for the driver of a heavy transport lorry to refuse to pull over to allow a motorist to pass. Rome of the people who use those vehicles have a sign on the back, ''Please sound your horn so that »e can afford you the courtesy of the road.'' On behalf of the road-transport operators I resent the reflection east on them by the hon. member. I know that if he was a member of the Road Trans-port ·workers' Union instead of the Aus-tralian Railways Union he would not cast those aspersions. He does not talk about the railway employees, but he makes these infamous charges and allegations against

these people, which amount to a .grave aspersion. The administrators have 1ssued specific instructions to their staff that they are to do everything possible to facilitate thp movement of traffic on the road.

JUr. Aikens: Is that why one of them got a hit on the nose the other day~

JUr. DUGGAN: If they hit the hon. member on the nose they might be doing a public service. If the hon. member made the statements outside that he makes under privileges in this Chamber ho would require medical attention.

Perhaps there are some operators who come from other States who do not observe the rules of the road. I am referring not to the drivers of the licensed transport. service, but to the itinerant haulier who comes from New South Wales or Victoria. I am not going to cast any general reflection on the latter but there n1ay be some of them who do not accord to other users adequate road courtesy. I resent the general statement of the hon. member on this matter.

In regard to the industrial conditions, on behalf of the Transport Workers' Union I resent his accusations that they are labour-ing under conditions that are a disgrace to the union movement. Mr. Hough, the secre-tary of the union, has obtained from the court by means of arbitration and concilia-tion conditions of rates and wages that com-pare favourably with those applying to employees in other industries throughout the State. Despite the hon. member's sneering reference to these hauliers, I know two or three of them who give their utility trucks free of cost for employees to go to the seaside during their vacations. Some of them have insurance policies covering the lives of their employees and they have a bonus sys-tem on a non-contributory basis. I regret the hon. member should have taken advantage of the privilege given under the Standing Orders to level infamous and scandalous charges against the Government and malign a highly respected body of men. I will conclude with the hon. member by merely regretting that a man who ostensibly stands for the interests of tl;le ordinary worker outside should come into this Chamber and not only first of all attempt to discredit the workers' Govern-ment-but to make what to my mind is the more sPrious accusation, to discredit a fine body of workers. He poses as a champion of the· working man but he maligns the Go,--ernment on every occasion he can m;d, ,,.~at is more important, he stoops to sbgmabse such a grand bodv of men as ~he members of the Transport vVorkers' Umon.

I thm1k hon. members who have spoken for their references to the way in which the Bill was introduced. I regret some who saw fit to criticise the provisions of the Bill eith~r did not understand it or had not read thmr own brief. The hon. member for Mirani, ,,-ho often crosses swords with members on this side, appeared to stray considerably from the path of fart. I was su;prised that he did so because he had mentwned only last Thursday that there were some provisions in the proposed Bill he liked bnt he thought we could considerably amend it; consequently,

State Transport Facilities [6 MARCH.] Acts Amendment Bill. 1885

I was disappointed to hear him speak in the strain he did. Before dealing with his state-ment or, to be kind to the hon. member with his misrepresentations, I should like to' make some general observations on tlie criticism that the Government are going out of their way to harass local authorities.

The very reverse is the truth. From time to tim~, by wa:J: of our subsidy schemes, we have given considerable financial aid to local authorities and in the operations of the Trans-port Department and the Main Roads Com-mission we have been extremely generous to !hem generally. It may not be known that m Queensland there are 2,087 vehicles operated by local authorities that do not pay registration fees and I think it will be agreed that that exemption is a very considerable one and represents a very great financial advantage to the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Evans: Do you not think they are entitled to them~

lUr. DUGGAN: The very fact that we give them shows that we think they are entitled to them, but the fact altogether refutes the hon. member's statement that we have been completely unsympathetic with local authorities.

But let us go a little further in regard to the treatment we give to local authorities. Mention has been made of the niggardly sum of money expended by the Main Roads Commission on the maintenance of main roads. I think it was the hon. member for Mi.rani who contended that the amount being paid under the State Transport Facilities Act to Consolidated Revenue should revert to local authorities and at least a considerable part of the money, if not all, should be spent on the maintenance of main roads. I have with me some figures that are very illuminating. TlH'y disclose that for the thi·ee years 1947 to 1950 the Main Roads Commission expended on permanent works and maintenance a total of £8,792,517, whereas the motor-vehicle revenue over tf!e period was £3,190,518. We have to take mto account the total receipts under the State Transport Facilities Act and it will be seen that the total receipts both from motor-vehicle registration and revenue derived under that Act totalled £4 316 236, but even this is considerably less than' the total disbursements of the Main Roads Com-mission.

Those figures can be emphasised in a more strildng degree if we remember that since 1932, when this Government assumed office, to 30 .Tune, 1950, £13,850,660 had been col-lected in motor-vehicle registration fees under the Main Roads Act and during the same period, of a total expenditure of £43,009,160, £23,319,580 was spent on per-manent works and £9,073,780 on mainten-ance. The miscellaneous expenditure was £10,615,000. It will be seen that we have spent approximately three times as much as we hnYe received from motor-Yehiclc registra-tion fees and all this talk about the GoYern-ment '~ not being sympathetic with local authmities is not bmne out by the facts.

Only last year, when we reYiewed rail1nty freights, I made a recommenc1ation to Cab-

inet and Cabinet accepted it-and I want to say that not only was that a gesture on our part but that the Treasurer was pleased to accept a debit in his department-by which we gave local authorities in certain isolated parts of Queensland a rebate of 20 per cent. I mention that particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Whitsunclay who talked about discrimination shown to the outer shires. All towns west of Burra on the Northern Railway and west of .Joycedale on the Central Railway received a rebate of 20 per cent. on railway freights to local authorities and nobody can argue that that is not a gesture of sympathy on the part of the Government. I am aware, as all hon.' members are aware, that local authorities are labouring under great difficulties, and their opportunities of deriving revenue are becom-ing less ancl less whereas costs, like State Government costs, are continuing to rise. I .mention these things to refute the idea that we have been unsympathetic towards local authorities in general.

A further point was made that under the proposed amendment in regard to local authorities vYe shall not treat them as gen-erously as in the past. The hon. member for Mirani suggested that there should be a nominal charge but. I want to point out that we are at the present moment permitting asbestos pipes, which are being used exclus-ively by local authorities, to be brought from New South Wales to Queensland on the pay-ment of a permit fee of 1s. a load. Can any· body suggest that that is punitive action on the part of the Government or embarrassing local authorities~ Every other producer in the c?mmunit;v is called upon to pay 3d. a ton-mrle from the border and when emer-gency transport is obliged to operate in New South Wales because of failure of train ser-vices through coal shortages we insist on £1 a ton for steel coming forward or on anY other commodity that is regarded as emer:. gency goods required for consumers in Queensland. But in the case of asbestos piping we haye fixed a charge of 1s. a load.

I think I have effectively replied to sug-gestions made about the Govemment 's going out of their vmy to embarrass local authori-ties in their financial operations.

iUr. Evans: All my criticism dealt with the suggested amendment.

iUr. DUGGAN: I told the hon. member that the 15-mile standard distance would still stand. He went on to say that the hon. member for Mackay was not interested in the }[ackay City Council and when that council drew metal from the quarry it vvould pay a tax on it. He said further that goods unloaded at the Mackay wharf, which is 3 miles from the rity, vYonld be taxed under the provisions of the Bill. Has he not a simple understanding of English~ I stated definitely that the 15-mile standard distance woulr1 still be ret~inecl and if the goods arc trn;,sportec1 only Cl miles from a wharf they IY011lcl be transported free of cost from the ship's side.

)Ir. S}}arkes: That is different from vYhen you introduced the matter.

1886 State Transport Facilities [ASSE:\fBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

lUr. DUGGAN: The b,on. member is too obstinate to understand the facts, because I said that the 15-mile standard . distance would obtain for goods conveyed l;JY road. .E'or passengers in taxi-cabs, there 1s a 25-mi;e limit.

Mr. Sparkes: Why did ~ou have to say that you >Verc giving a specwl concesston to Wambo?

JUr. DUGGAX: Because the hon. mem-mer got very hot under the collar, as usual, und st:uted to hit the table in the same way as he would hit the stock-rails in his paddock. He fails to realise that we on this side of the Committc~, anrl the fair-minded members of the Oppositimt, are not here to respond to the craek of the >Yhip of the hon. mcnl'I.Jet' for Aubio-ny. He is one of those graziers who are fahlY well ''cashed up'' and are used to order~i1g people around. He seems to think that he can come in hero and do theo same thing, but he cannot. He made a gre,at song and dance about this matter. He satd, ''Perhaps the ]I;Iinister is not aware of the fact, but the depot of the Wambo Shire Coun-cil is situated in the town of Dalby.'' I have alreadv said that where it is necessary for a local authority to traverse another local n uthority 's area to get materials from one division to another of its own area, it would be exempted from the provisions of the Act. 'l'he depot of the \Vambo Shire Council would come within that exemption. The Pioneer Shire Council will be exempted also, if it is necessary to travel through another local authority's area in carting necessary materials.

Mr. Sparkes interjected.

JUr. DUGGAN: I am dealing with the hon. member for :iYiirani at present. The hon. member for Aubigny has frequently said I charge him with talking balderdash yet spend so much time answering him and now he com-plains because I elect to ignore his inter· jections.

'l'he specific provision that is ulready con-tained in Section 24 ( 19) of the Act will not be affected by any of the proposed amend-ments. That subsection provides that-

'' Any vehicle carrying stone, road metal, gravel, earth, clay, or loam for use in con-structing, repairing, or maintai11ing any road in Queensland for the Crown or for any nrown corporation or instrunwntality, or instrumentality, corporation, or person representing the Crown or for ::my Local Authority; ''

shall be exempt. It does not matter whether the stuff comc:s from 'l.'hargomindah to Bris-],ane; if it comes within that category it will come down free of cost. If there are any special cases requiring sympathetic considera-tion by the commissioner, it will be forth-coming. For example, I mentioned a little wlli le ago thnt asbestos piping was in short supply and thnt we have fixed a nominal clwr;;"c of Is. for it.

The hon. member for Whitsund;~v said that the Art shoulcl bo more flexible· and that provision should be made for the variable Ye have a 0radnated l'ate of tnx dcpendmg on the isolation of the operator, the alte:na-tiYe transport facilities available, and tlnngs of that kind. In relation to aerial transport, 11·e h:Fe a tax of 10 per cent. on the coast, 7 i per cont. in the inland, and only 2i per cent. in the l

State Transport Facilities [6 :MARCH.] Acts Amendment Bill. 1887

authority at Proserpine, which has to send to Bowen, a distance of 45 miles, to collect its mateTial. Will it have to pay the tax~

Itir. DUGGAN: It probably will pay some tax, but that will depend on the circum-stances. I cannot imagine any good reason why the local authority at Proserpine should senl! to Bowen but if it has a good reason anll it comes within the limits of fair con-sideTation it will pay only a nominal charge.

Many licensed people carry only wool, petrol, and other high-freight goods. I do not think that the Wambo Shire Council whose chairman does so much sque3ling here; would send any of its vehicles to Brisbane to carry back the low-freight stuff. It would only carry petrol and goods like that. Know-ing how parsimonious the chairman of the shire is I know that he would expect the Railway Department to carry the low-freight goods. He would only bring the lorry down to collect goods that attracted the high-freight rate. He would carry only petrol and oil. The hon. member, being a chairman of a local authority for so many years, would lliscover that position under the Act and take advantage of it, whereas the ordinary man associated with the local authority would not be so miserable as to try to save a few shil-lings in that way. The hon. member makes his plea on behalf of the very big landholder in his district whom he represents. If he were to put up that plea on behalf of the people who held little suburban allotments I should be the first to say that he was animated by concern for the interests and requirements of the ordinary ratepayer, but knowing how extensive and valuable are his own and his friends' .areas I can quite imagine that every saving of a penny in the pound is a tremendous saving to them and if pai(! to the \V ambo Shire Council would increase its revenue tremendously.

I shall be very happy to discuss any other points raised by hon. members on the second reading of the Bill.

Jir. ~ICHOI"SON (Murrumba) (2.35 p.m.): I listened attentively to the Minister replying to the points raised by hon. members on this side of the Chamber. A tax on heavy transport would be appreciated by all con-cerned, particularly road-users, provided the receipts >vere used in repairing the roads. At one time we had an admission from the Minister that the receipts derived from roa cl taxation were used not so much for repairing roads as to offset the loss suffered by the railways on goods usually transporte

1888 State Transport Facilitif.g [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

so that the 15-mile radius could be made a common exemption for all people transporting goods from any one centre.

. Tl~e heav~-ve.hicle ta..x should not apply ·w1tlnn the 1v-nule radius. Under the present ~ystem a man t;ansporting goods over 20 miles 1s only five nnles beyond the 15-mile radius but has to pay the heavy-vehicle tax on the 20-mile trip whereas the man living within the .15-.mi~e rad~us gets it for nothing. Once agam 1t. ~s a. drrect tax or an imposition on people hvmg m the country. As I mentioned previously, the town of Redcliffe is affected by this anomaly. The Act distinctly states that the tax is to offset the loss on the rail-ways but there is no railwav for the trans-port of goods or passengers to Redcliffe. Why should the tax apply to that town~

There are other ways of obtaining revenue and one is by the correct policing of the Transport Facilities Act. There is no deny-ing that people generally and transport-owners in particular are paying a cert::Lin amount of taxation on, say, 3 tons of goods but are carting 7 tons. That is not to the benefit of the public, who p::Ly exactly the same price faT the goods caTted illicitly as they pay faT the 3 tons on which the t::Lx is paid. The conect policing of the Act would inevitably bring such vehicles under contTol and the State, instead of obtaining revenue foT the 3 tons of goods carted and paid for, would obtain revenue from the 7 tons, part of which is now carted illicitly. The CommissioneT for TTansport contends that this comes within the jurisdiction of the police or Traffic Departu{ent. I recom-mend to the Minister that traffic inspectors employed by the commission be placed in charge of that department and the roads policed, not for 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week but for 24 hours a clay. It would soon be found that the tTanspoTt operators, after being pulled up, prosecuted m1d fined faT overloading, would remedy the thing them-selves and eventually theTe would be very little necessity faT inspection.

lUr. Devries: Yours is a good case against private enterprise, is it not~

lUr. NICROLSON: There is no hon. membeT in thi.s Assembly who is a gTeater upholder of pnvate enterprise than I am but I do not think private enterprise or for that matter any enterpTise should be breaking the Jaw. I stand for law and ordeT. If a peTson breaks the law he should get his just desserts.

I sincerely hope that the Minister and CommissioneT, with their usual fOTesighted-ness, will give great consiclemtion to the suggestions coming from this side of the Committee and not be guided solely by hon. membeTs sitting on the Government benches.

lUr. lUULLER (Fassifern) (2.49 p.m.) : I do not propose to deal with the amend-ments in detail but after listening to the Minister I feel that this Bill is a rather impOTtant one. I agree with the hon. gentle-man in two matters, firstly, that people who use the roads should pay for them and secondly, that people who destroy the roads should be made to pay for the damage they do. These are impOTtant principles that should concern us at this moment.

AfteT listening to the Minister I feel theTe are at least three rather serious anomalies in the Bill. I gathered from his remaTks that he intends to place local authorities In Queensland in the same position as any general carrieT. In other words each one will be compelled to get a lic~nse befoTe being permitted to carry its own supplies. If those were not his words, he used words to that effect. The Minister went to a great deal of tTouble in telling us that local authorities would not be permitted to cany their own goods. One has only to work with a local authoTity to realise how adversely that pToposal will affect them, because local authoTities that cany theiT own goods from the seaboaTd OT the main cities have not their tmcks on the road every day. They might be on them once a week, OT once a fortnight, and in some cases only once a ye aT, and theTefore the proposed regulation is going to be a serious matter.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the goods canied by local-authority conveyances are used solely and wholly fOT road construction and maintenance, and noth-ing else. The goods are not for trading pur-poses. Frequently, local authorities are obliged to send to Brisbane for theiT goods OT wait until they aTe delivered by mil, per-haps a fortnight. I want the MinisteT to appTeciate just what it means to a local authoTity that is compelled to wait faT its goods. I do not think theTe are many serious offenders in this Tespect. I gathered from the Minister's TCmaTks that only one or two shires are abusing the pTivileges that local authoTities enjoy. I admit that we do enjoy privileges, and particularly because trucks and cars we use ::ue not chaTgecl the ordinary license fee or the heavy-vehicle fee. It would be a TetTograde step, howeveT, to bring loc::Ll authorities into the same class as general canieTs. That is one of the anomalies of the pTOposal. I repeat that it is only occasionally that local-authority Yehicles are on the roads c.anying goods, and they are only on the Toads becasue the local authori-ties are obliged to carry their goods or to be put to serious inconvenience in waiting for their anival by train.

Perhaps the Minister does not appreciate the tremendous loss occasioned to local authorities in waiting for supplies of oil and other things. It mav mean that a whole gang is thrown out of employment waiting for a certnin machine to arrive. It may so happen that bulldozeTs have broken down and it is necessaTy to get another one, or parts, by Toad. It is not only the man employed driving the machine that is held up, but everyone about the place. Local authorities should be given a free hand because of the many difficulties thev have to contend with occasioned by these I1appen-ings.

I gather that it is intended to levy a tax on the milk tankeTs. It may be said that !he people who use tl1e milk should pay for 1t,. but le~ us look at the position of the nulk suppher. He does not put his milk on the TOad because he wants to do it· he puts it there because there i8 no ~ther

State T1·ansport Facilities [6 MARCH.] Acts Amendment Bill. 188!}

means of transport. In 90 per cent. of the tases \vhere milk is on the road it will be found that the railways cannot cater for the business. In the :thst place, they have not the necessary tankers to hold the milk, uor could they give the required service in the limited time available. Milk, of course, is a highly perishable product, and unless it is rarried quickly from the farm to the treatment worl's it deteriorates to such an extent that it is not fit for human consump-tion. So far as I can see there is no way round the problem of the road transport of milk.

Further-and again bringing in the prin-riple that those who use the roads should pa:· for them-the people who supply this milk do contribute towards the cost of the roads. Surely a ratepayer who is contributing towa.rds the cost of the construction and main-tenance of the roads is entitled to use them~ In accordance with British justice, surely a man who pays rates to a shire council is entitled to use the roads to carry his goods to market? I contend that the producer of milk has every right to use the roads, and it would bf' simply placing a further tax on someone to impose this charge on milk tankers. It wonld have to be passed on, because under the present system the Com-missioner of Prices investigates costs from every angle, and as this would be regarded as an unforeseen cost it could be placed only on the shoulders of the consumer. There-fore, the imposition of the tax would he getting us nm1·he11e. I think all cases such as this should he considered very carefully before we rush in and say that because thPse people use the Toads they should pay for them. In many cases, they do pay for them, nnd the im'position of a tax on milk tankers \\·oulcl merely result in clnplication.

I agree that we should pe11alise the people who destroy the roacls, but as far as I could gather fTom an interjection made when the ~finister was speaking it would appear that it is not intenclefl to clo that. To my mind, no-one is cau~ing greater havoc to the roads today than some of these heav~· trm1sport vehicles, many of which are carrying con-siderably more than they are supposed to. During the l.ast three years, at least, our main roads have been simply breaking down. I nm referring not only to the main Toowoomba road but to e,·crv 1i1ain road that one cares to mention. 'Fhe3; were huilt in the first place to c:ury loads of from 5 to 8 tons, but it is a common thing toda:· to see loads of from 15 to 20 tons being carried on them. In intro-ducing such ::m important Bill as this, I think the ?11:inister should give serious considemtion to such a matter. There should be some means of dealing with people who arc actually destroying our roads.

I clo not agree with the hon. member for ::ifnnclingbnna that the drivers of these heavy transport yehicles are the 011ly people who are de,-oid of ro;~d eourtesv. Manv drivers of l'ri,·ate cars are entirely tlevoid of a sense of courtesy on the roads. I have seen metal placards on the backs of some heavy yehic!Ps -I think they were owned by Pan! 's Ice C1·e::nn mHl :Milk Ltd.-reading, ''We expect our rlrinrs to give people the couTtesy of the

1;oacl. If you ns know.'' generally by loss of life avoided.

do not receive that courtesy, let If that spirit was adopte(l people using the roads, much and many accidents wonlcl be

~Ir. Spark!>s: policy, too.

They carry out that

}Jr. lUULLER: Many of them do, but a: number of people on the road are absolute road hogs. Probably the load itself com-plies with the regulations but a flapping tarpaulin obscures your view of the road.

These are mgent matters that the Minister should endeavour to remedy at once and unless it is clone the extensive damage that has occurred on the road will continue. I cannot for the life of me see why we should give people the right to utterly disregard their duty to the State by overloading their vehicles, thus bringing about heavy destruction of our roads. I thoroughly agree with the view that the people who nse the roads should pay for them but I also stTongly urge that the people who damage them should pay for that damage as >Yell.

~Ir. CHALK (Lockyer) (3.2 p.m): The Minister has given ns an outline of the main provisions of the measure. I agree with most of the points that he made and acknow-ledge that many things need tightening up. Taking them by and large -the hon. gentle· man's proposals are necessary. Most of the points have been fairly ·well covered by hon. members who have already spoken bnt then' are one or two I should like to make.

I refer first of all to the delay in the issue of permits by the Transport Department. The Minister said that he hoped that the Bill would lead to a speeding-up in the issue of permits and I hope that he is right. Very frequently there are complaints by appli-cants for permits that the Police Department or the authority to which tlw application is submitted are required to refer the applica-tion to Brisbane, thereby causing consider-able delay. .An applicant for a permit is usually very anxious to get a prompt decision because upon it depends a prospective contract between him and the person offering the goods for transport. That is why I urge a speeding-up in the issue of permits. Only the other day I \Yas told of a case in which a permit being required for loading to be carried out in four or five days' time but there was regrettable delay and it was not until four days after the work was to be carried out that a replv came from the authorities. I know that the commissioner himself and his department are doing a very good job but there seems to be, shall I say, certain red tape that is responsible for. thi~ hindrance and delay of which I complam. J think it may be overcome by giving greater authority and more set instructions to those whose duty it is to deal \Vith permits. in the various cities or centres where perm1ts are sought.

I know that the subject of local authorities has been very well covered by previous speakers but I should like to add my appre-ciation of the Minister's remarks made smce

1890 State Transport Facilities [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

the luncheon adjomnment. I think he has now given us a clearer outline of the Bill than he did when he introduced it. If the position is as explained by the Minister I personally do not intend to offer much opposition to it but I was particularly interested when the Minister brought this Bill down and explained some of its provisions because in my elector-ate I have two shires that are endeavouring to build up their road-building equipment and plant generally. They are buying both road-making plant and motor vehicles. Their workmen are compelled to go into adjoining shires for bridge timber. The Minister quoted a section of the Act defining items that can be carried by local authorities but I was not able to gather from it any information concerning the haulage of timber. In most shires haulage of timber is important. I hope that the Minister will see that con-sideration is given to those shires that are trying to help themselves in these matters.

Another point that has not been touched on very much but one that concerns the small farmer is the issuing of permits for the farm utility truck, which in many instances is his lifc-bloou. He wants to be at liberty to go into town, pick up commodities and goods for himself and transport them back to the farm in his utility. At present there is some doubt about the position and we shall not be certain of it until we hm·e an opportunity of examining the Bill. vV e had an instance rm·av hack in August lust year when the regi~tration fee of that vehicle was inn·cascd.

The CHAlRiiiAN: Order!

lUr. CHALK: I intend to connect my point with the Bill because I contend that ·increase in registration fees--

The CHAlRJIA'N: Order! Registration fees are not a part of this Bill.