legislative assembly wednesday march - …valuations by valuer-general's department.-mr....

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 1965

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2842 Soil Conservation Bill [ASSEMBLY] Questions

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH, 1965

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

QUESTIONS

SCHOOL TRANSPORT SERVICES, BALONNE ELECTORATE.-Mr. Mann for Mr. Duggan, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Did any school transport services operate in the Balonne Electorate prior to 1957 and, if so, how many?

Answer:-"Prior to 1957 there were no daily

school road transport services operating in the Balonne Electorate as it was then constituted. At present, however, there are twenty-nine (29) such services conveying pupils resident in the Balonne Electorate."

REJECTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMs.-Mr. Hanlon, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1) Is it possible for the State Government Insurance Office to supply medical details and such other relevant grounds

Questions [24 MARCH] Questions 2843

within reason, when advising an applicant for Worker's Compensation of rejection of his claim and, if not, why not?

(2) Would it be practical to allow an appellant reference to a medical referee before the matter goes before an Industrial Magistrate and, if not, why not?

Answers:-( 1) "Applicants are advised of the

grounds for rejection in general terms. I do not feel that it is practicable to give to each rejected applicant a detailed statement of the full lay and medical evidence avmlable to the office and the office evaluation of that evidence."

(2) "The Government has already shown that it prefers to have some medical questions settled by a well qualified medical tribunal rather than a magistrate, who has to rely on and make a determination between conflicting medical assessments. So far, our attempts have been confined to such narrow specialties as miner's phthisis, and heart. Experience to date has shown that it has infinitely speeded determinations and many cases have been admitted to benefit which were previously rejected. The Government proposes to give wider use to these satisfactory methods. It will involve legislation which is under consideration for the August session."

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH LAND PURCHASERS, FITZROY BASIN SCHEME.-Mr. Houston for Mr. Lloyd, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( 1) What financial arrangements have been made with purchasers at the last freehold sales of land under the Fitzroy Basin Land Development by way of advances from the Agricultural Bank?

(2) In the case of all freehold sales of this land, are any of the wool-broking firms, who have conducted these sales, involved in any financial arrangements with purchasers by way of guarantees or direct financial advances?

Answers:-( 1) "The last freehold sales were made

on Wednesday, March 17, 1965, and as yet the Lands Department would not have any record of any proposed mortgages. The Agricultural Bank is administered by my colleague, the Honourable the Treasurer, and the Question should more properly be addressed to that Minister."

(2) "The Department would have no direct knowledge of any such transactions except for the registration of a mortgage. The first two sales involved ten blocks and to date mortgages have been registered

over two of the blocks. In no case was the mortgagee one of the firms involved in the sales. Regarding the last sale see my Answer to Question 1."

VALUATIONS BY VALUER-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.-Mr. Houston, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Local Government,-

( 1) How many times have valuations been carried out by the Valuer-General's Department on each of the valuation divisions and what is the latest value of each division?

(2) What was the date when each division was last valued and when did or will these values become effective?

(3) How did the latest values of each division compare with the previous values?

Answer:-( 1 to 3) "A statement has been prepared

setting out the information asked for in relation to the valuation districts of Brisbane and East Moreton; West Moreton; Downs; Southern Downs; South Western; Wide Bay and Burnett; Rockhampton and Central; Townsville; Cairns and Northern; and North Western, which I now lay upon the Table of the House."

Paper.-Whereupon Mr. Richter laid upon the Table the statement referred to.

WIDENING OF OLD CLEVELAND ROAD, BELMONT.-Mr. Newton, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

Have further plans been drawn up by the Main Roads Department for the widening of Old Cleveland Road from the Belmont shopping centre to the Creek Road intersection in Old Cleveland Road to overcome the traffic hazard in this section? If so, when is it expected that this work will be carried out?

AI1Swer:-"The Brisbane City Council has in hand

the design of a section at the Belmont tram terminus from Jones Road to Gallipoli Road. The work will be submitted for approval of the expenditure as soon as the completed plans can be made available. Widening and installation of traffic lights is proposed at the Creek Road intersection. Plans have not yet been prepared for the widening but they can be put in hand fairly soon. However, the traffic lights cannot be installed in under three months because of work of higher priority and work already in hand by the State Traffic Engineer. These two sections do not quite cover the entire length from

I L__

2844 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

Belmont shopping centre to the Creek Road intersection as mentioned in the Question-there is a short gap between the above two sections."

RESIGNATIONS FROM POLICE FORCE.Mr. Sherrington for Mr. Bromley, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

How many members of the Police Force in all branches have resigned in the last twelve months rather than accept transfer to other duties?

Answer:-"Eleven members of the Police Force

resigned during the last twelve months subsequent to receiving notice of transfer; but of these eleven, only three stated specifically that their resignations were tendered on account of dissatisfaction with transfers."

USE OF CIVILIANS TO CHECK ELECTORAL RoLLs.-Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

(1) Since the approved strength for the Police Force has not been filled and because of the present record percentage of unsolved crime, will he consider the appointment of people to carry out the State Electoral Roll check so that police officers can be relieved of this duty?

(2) In view of the time involved for this task, could the police officers detailed to perform the work be given tasks directly associated with their calling in order to clean up the backlog of police work?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "It is not proposed to relieve

police personnel of this duty at the present time. However, the feasibility of relieving police of this duty will be given further consideration."

REPRINT OF INEBRIATES INSTITUTION AcT.-Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

(1) Is he aware that it is impossible to obtain a copy of "The Inebriates Institution Act of 1896" from the Government Printing Office?

(2) As many people desire to retain a copy of this Act, will he give instructions that more copies be printed?

Answers:-(1)" "The Inebriates Institutions Act of

1896" is an Act for which no public demand has existed and no copies of the Act are held for sale. There are manv Acts in this category. Persons enquiring

for any such Acts are usually informed that they appear in the volumes of the Reprint of the Public Acts of Queensland or the annual Sessional Volumes, which may be inspected at the Public Library."

(2) "One enquiry was received recently for a copy of "The Inebriates Institutions Act of 1896" and this is the o~ly enquiry which the staff can recollect m at least the past five years. In view of this it is not proposed to print more copies of this Act."

REVENUE, STAMP DUTIES 0FFICE.-Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

(!) By how much is the revenue from the Stamp Duties Office under the Budget Estimate for the year ended December 31, 1964?

(2) What was the revenue from the Stamp Duties Office for the years ended December 31, 1963 and 1964 respectively?

(3) What is the reason for the decrease, if any, in revenue from this office?

Answers:-(1 ) "Budgets are prepared on a fiscal

year and not a calendar year basis. There is no budget estimate for a year ended December 31."

(2) "The actual revenue collections of the Stamp Duties Office for the twelve months ended December 31, 1963, was £12,113,145. For the corresponding period ended December 31, 1964, the figure was £13,011,868, an increase of £898,723."

(3) "See Answer to (2)."

AMOUNTS OWING BY ROAD TRANSPORT OPERATORs.-Mr. Byrne, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

(!) Will he table a list showing debtors and amounts owing by them as Roads Contribution to Maintenance and State Transport Tax which have been outstanding in excess of twelve months?

(2) What action, if any, is proposed to collect these outstanding amounts?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "The individual transactions

of transport operators are considered to be their own private business concern and unless the Honourable Member can give any sound reason for asking this Question I do not propose to reveal the information. If the Honourable Member has any interest in a particular operator or operators and makes a direct approach to me for information I shall endeavour to assist him."

Questions [24 MARCH] Questions 2845

TEACHER's RESIDENCE, MUNDOO SCHOOL.-Mr. Byrne, pursuant to asked The Minister for Works,-

STATE notice,

In view of the great delay which has already taken place, and as its bathroom conditions have been described as the worst in the district, will he indicate when renovations and additions to the teacher's residence at Mundoo State School will be undertaken?

Answer:-

"Renovations to the bathroom and improvements to the front steps and balcony of the teacher's residence at Mundoo State School have been the subject of a report by my Department's District Officer at Cairns, and an estimate of cost has been prepared. Funds have not been and still are not available for this work, but consideration will again be given to the carrying out of the improvements later in the financial year in the light of the then fund position."

REINTRODUCTION OF GRANDSTAND TRAIN SERVICE, CAIRNS-KURANDA RAILWAY.Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

Will he give early and favourable consideration to the reconversion of carriages for the reintroduction of the pre-war grandstand train on the Cairns-Kuranda scenic railway as a unique attraction and facility for tourists and for residents of the Cairns district?

Answer:-

"The reintroduction of the pre-war grandstand train to the Cairns Range would involve the costly conversion of carriages, which when fitted would be suitable only for that particular service. There also is the feature that these carriages would only be used for a period of approximately five months per year, and the fact that the traffic is already catered for by modern diesel rail motor trains which eliminate the use of steam locomotives, which would require to be used for the hauling of the train sought by the Honourable Member."

STAFF AND PATIENTS, CAIRNS DENTAL CLINic.-Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice asked The Minister for Health,- '

(1) What are the numbers of (a) adults and (b) children on the waiting lists at the dental clinic at Cairns?

(2) What is the number of personnel employed and their designations at the Cairns Base Hospital's dental clinic?

(3 ) Does he consider the number of staff at present employed at the dental clinic, Cairns, to be sufficient to adequately cope with the number of patients applying?

Answers:-(1) (a) "Adults, 37. (b) Children, 65."

(2) "Dentists (base clinic), 2; itinerant dentists, 2; dental mechanics, 3; dental attendants, 3; clerk, 1. One of the dental mechanics resigned as from February 26, 1965, and a replacement is being sought. There also is a vacancy in one of the positions of dental attendant which it is expected will be filled in the near future."

(3) "The Cairns Hospital Board has at no time received any complaints that the number of staff employed is insufficient. Consideration is to be given to the appointment of an additional dentist on completion of the new dental clinic."

ESTABLISHMENT OF FISH CANNERY AT CAIRNs.-Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1) Has any survey been carried out by the Fisheries Department at his direction or otherwise, that would suggest the establishment and development of a fishing industry and a fish cannery for Far Northern Queensland?

(2) If so, have officers of the Fisheries Department ascertained by data the possibility of establishing such a cannery at Cairns, a base seaport adjacent to the worthwhile opportunities of this industry in the waters of the Cape York Peninsula and also the air, road and rail terminal of Far Northern areas?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "The only fishery in North

Queensland likely to offer an early cannery opportunity is tuna fishing. Officers of the Department of Harbours and Marine have carried out a preliminary examination into the tuna fishery potential in Queensland waters. With a view to extending this examination into a full scale survey, the Department's director has engaged in discussions with senior officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and C.S.I.R.O. A programme for a proposed survey is now being prepared by C.S.I.R.O. which will be available shortly for consideration by both the Commonwealth and State Governments. Whilst the preliminary examination suggests a reasonable potential, a full scale survey must be made before the establishment of a tuna fishery can be considered."

EXTENSION OF FACILITIES, lNALA DENTAL CLINIC.-Mr. Sherrington, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

In view of the long period of waiting time for children requiring dental treatment at the Inala dental clinic, has any consideration been given to enlarging this clinic and extending treatment to adults?

2846 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

Answer:-"Consideration has been given by the

South Brisbane Hospitals Board to the extension of the existing dental clinic facilities at Inala but it is not possible to do so at present as there are insufficient dentists available to staff all the existing dental clinics. I have been advised by the Hospitals Board that it is hoped to make provision for the expansion of the Inala Dental Clinic during next financial year."

GRANTING OF SCHOOL HoLIDAY IN BRISBANE BY GOVERNOR-GENERAL.-Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

(!) Were the children attending at all Brisbane schools recently granted a holiday to commemorate the final visit to Queensland of the retiring Governor-General, Lord De L'Isle?

(2) Will a similar holiday be granted to children in other schools throughout the State and, if not, why not?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "His Excellency the Governor

General, on the occasion of a reception given to pupil representatives of schools in the metropolitan area at Government House on March 17, granted a holiday to children attending Brisbane schools, to be celebrated on March 19. The granting of this holiday was obviously to mark this particular occasion and was purely a matter within the discretion of the GovernorGeneral himself. A similar holiday was not granted to children in other schools throughout the State."

CHARGE AGAINST J. T. CASHIN FOR TRAFFIC 0FFENCE.-Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

(!) Was John Thomas Cashin fined £75 by Mr. Gardiner, S.M., on Monday, March 22, and, if so, for what offence committed under what circumstances?

(2) Did the police evidence disclose that Cashin had committed an additional offence at the same time and, if so, why was he not charged with it?

(3) Has his attention been drawn to the report in The Courier-Mail of March 23, alleging police discrimination in favour of this type of offender, and, if so, will this discrimination be allowed to continue unabated?

Answers:-(!) "A man named John Thomas

Cashin was fined £75 in default one month's imprisonment and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for a period of six months, at the Magistrate's Court, Brisbane, on the 22nd instant, on

a charge that on March 21, 1965, on Enoggera Road, Newmarket, Brisbane, whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug he was in charge of a motor vehicle. He had been involved in an accident with two other vehicles in Enoggera Road approximately one hour before he was located and arrested at his home. No person was injured as a result of this accident. Cashin had stopped his vehicle near the scene of the accident, had supplied his correct name and address to one of the other drivers involved, had left his vehicle at the scene of the accident and had then, prior to the arrival of police, journeyed, after hailing a taxi, to his home at Kelvin Grove."

(2) "No evidence to support the preferment of any other charge, particularly a charge of 'failing to stop after being involved in an accident' was obtained."

(3) "I have no evidence that police exercise discrimination in favour of 'drinkdriving' offenders. On the contrary police have definite instructions to the effect that they must thoroughly investigate all traffic accidents and alleged breaches of the traffic laws with a view to determining whether evidence is available to substantiate the preferment of charges and if there is appropriate action must be taken to ensure that the matters are determined according to law. I have been unable to locate an article of the kind referred to in item (3) of the Question, although I did locate a press article in The Courier-Mail of the 23rd instant dealing with the case against Cashin."

CHARGE AGAINST MR. JEFFRIESS.-Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1 ) Was one J effriess arrested in Toowoomba on the night of March 12 and, if so, by whom?

(2) If so, how many members of the Police Force were present at Jeffriess' arrest and how did they get there and why?

( 3) How many civilians were present at the time of arrest and how and why did they come to be there?

( 4) When Jeffriess was arrested did he make several exclamations in a loud voice, and if so, what were they?

(5) To where was Jeffriess taken by the police after arrest?

(6) With what offence was Jeffriess subsequently charged and did he appear in Court to answer such charge? If not, why not?

(7) Was a civilian witness outside the watchhouse, named Myers, given any advice concerning Jeffriess' arrest and charge by any member of the Police Force and, if so, what was the policeman's name and the nature of the advice tendered?

Death of Mr. J. W. Fletcher [24 MARCH] Death of Mr. J. W. Fletcher 2847

(8) Was the offence of which Jeffriess was charged the only offence committed by him on that occasion and, if not, why was he not charged with them all?

(9) Do the Statute laws as administered by the police apply to all citizens of the State, without fear or favour, particularly with regard to drunk-driving and failing to stop after an accident and, if not, to which citizens and under what circumstances are they inapplicable?

Answer:-"As the file relating to the information

required by the Honourable Member was not held at the Brisbane office, I have not yet had an opportunity of perusing it. I ask the Honourable Member to repeat the Question on Friday.

DEATH OF MR. J. W. FLETCHER

MoTioN oF CoNDOLENCE

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (11.30 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move-

"1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this State by the late John William Fletcher, Esquire, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland.

"2. That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to the widow and family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained."

The late Mr. Fletcher, a former member of this House, was elected to the 22nd Parliament of Queensland as representative for the electorate of Port Curtis on 9 October, 1920, and served the full term of that Parliament till 12 May, 1923, when he was defeated in the State election of that year.

The late Mr. Fletcher belonged to an earlier generation of Parliamentarians, and I doubt whether many persent-day members of Parliament would be aware of his service in this House. No doubt most of us certainly recall him as an expert member of various royal commissions on land and pastoral matters. I had the privilege of knowing him personally and enjoyed very much conversations with him, particularly concerning pastoral problems of the State. Whilst he was a member of this House he made his mark as a keen and able debater, and was regarded as an authority on land settlement problems. I recall also that he was a particularly staunch opponent of the State enterprises established by the Ryan Labour Government. If hon. members care to refer to "Hansard" of that period, I am sure they will enjoy reading the verbal thrust and parry during those debates between Mr. Fletcher and the late Hon. W. Forgan Smith who was, during Mr. ·Fletcher's term of office in the House, Minister without portfolio, and subsequently Minister for Public Works.

Apart from his parliamentary service, the late Mr. Fletcher, who was a man of wide experience in the affairs of the pastoral industry, gave splendid and enduring service to Queensland and Australia. He received the O.B.E. for his valuable work in association with the late Sir William Payne as a member of the royal commission ii)to Northern Territory land conditions in 1937. He was also a member of the royal commission into the Queensland meat industry and the establishment of abattoirs in 1945.

He was, among official posts that he held during his long and useful life, a member of the Commonwealth Banking Board (1951-1952), a director of the Union Trustee Company of Australia Limited, and chairman and general manager of a number of pastoral companies.

The late Mr. Fletcher, who was a native of New South Wales, came to Queensland in 1908 and, in association with others, established a meat exporting company at Torrens Creek, near Hughenden. In 1916 he became general manager of the Gladstone meatworks, a position that he relinquished to enter politics. In 1924 he purchased Bonus Downs, a sheep property near Mitchell, and in subsequent years he held financial interests in several other properties in Western and North-western Queensland.

On looking back over the record of the late Mr. Fletcher's life, I think all hon. members will agree that he is entitled to be called a notable Queensland citizen of whom it can be said that he played a very worthy part in the development of the State. His work is recorded in the annals of the State and, in addition to being a very good Queenslander, he was also a good Australian. It remains for us now to record in the annals of this House our due meed of respect and tribute to his services to the State.

I commend the motion to the House and, in doing so, I take the opportunity of extending to the late gentleman's widow and family our deepest sympathy and condolence in his passing.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (11.34 a.m.): I think it is true, as the Premier has said, that there would be nobody in the House who knew the late Mr. Fletcher in his parliamentary capacity. Some of us, in common with the Premier, had the opportunity of knowing him in his private capacity and I, too, enjoyed many pleasant conversations with him. He was a person who did not waste time on trivialities. Immediately one engaged in conversation with him he would invariably embark on a subject that was important, and would ascertain one's views and give one the benefit of his. I always found him to be an e·xtremely well-informed person. It is true that he had a very short period in this House representing the important constituency of Port Curtis, which has been represented over the years by a succession of able men, but he did play a very prominent part in the development of the

2848 District Courts Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

pastoral industries and in land development schemes in Queensland. He was, as the Premier said, an acknowledged authority on these subjects, and because of this he was given the other responsibilities to which the Premier referred, particularly his membership of the Commonwealth Bank Board.

Mr. Fletcher was quite a prolific writer on financial matters. Hon. members may recall that some years ago a suggestion was made that the £1 Australian should be brought to parity with the £1 sterling. This created a good deal of controversy, and Mr. Fletcher wrote many well-informed letters to the Press on this and other subjects.

The public announcement of his death showed, too, that he was of a philanthropic dispos_ition, because in addition to discharging worthrly many public duties during his ·lifetime, in his Will he made bequests to a number of charitable institutions. This is in keeping with his generous nature.

The State is the poorer for his passing, and although over 40 years have elapsed s!nce he was a member of this Assembly, it is nght that we should pay tribute to a man who earned the respect of his colleagues and the admiration of people who, while d!ffering from him politically, appreciated hrs knowledge of many subjects that were important to the development of Queensland. As I said, I had the pleasure of meeting the late Mr. Fletcher, and the tribute that I have paid to him today is very sincere because of my personal assessment of his fine qualities.

The Opposition joins with the Premier and members of the Government parties in paying tribute to the late Mr. Fletcher and in expressing sympathy to Mrs. Fletclier and other members of his family on the loss they have sustained by his passing.

Motion (Mr. Nicklin) agreed to, hon. members standing in silence.

DISTRICT COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

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

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the District Courts Acts, 1958 to 1964, in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

lNITIA TION IN COMMITTEE

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

Hon. P. R. DELAMOTHE (BowenMinister for Justice) (11.39 a.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend the District Courts Acts, 1958 to 1964 in certain particulars." '

The objects of this Bill are three in number.

Firstly, it proposes to increase the civil jurisdiction of the District Courts-

(a) in the case of an action arising out of any accident in which any vehicle is involved, from £2,500 to £5,000; and

(b) in any other case, from £1,500 to £3,000.

Secondly, the Bill proposes to increase the salaries of judges of District Courts by £250 per annum, from £5,000 to £5,250 per annum, and thirdly, for the designation of one of the judges as "Chairman of District Courts", and to attach to that office a salary at the rate of £5,500 per annum.

As to the first object of the Bill, the civil jurisdiction of District Courts, since their reconstitution in 1958, has not been altered.

Although there has been an increase in the work in the civil jurisdiction of the District Courts, the increase in the work of the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in comparison, has been of considerably greater proportion. The increase of work in this jurisdiction has to a large degree resulted from traffic incidents, which is generally a reason for increased work in all civil jurisdictions; whether of courts in or outside Queensland, in recent times.

Firstly, the civil jurisdiction of such courts as our District Courts may be claimed to continuously decrease when the monetary amount of the individual claims for damages continually increases so that certain actions which could be previously brought in the particular courts, by reason of quantum of damages, must now be brought in the higher court.

Secondly, by increasing the civil jurisdiction of District Courts it is considerd tlrat some small assistance may be given by the District Courts to relieving the Supreme Court of certain work.

It might be here mentioned that trials of civil actions in the Supreme and District Courts completed throughout the State rose from 529 in the 1963 calendar year to 700 in the 1964 calendar year. These figures do not include undefended matrimonial trials or bankruptcy matters which, of course, are heard only in the Supreme Court. Chamber and court applications completed rose from 1,869 in 1963 to 1,956 in 1964. The number of writs issued and petitions reccdved throughout the State for both Supreme and District Courts for 1963 and 1964 were 3,296 and 3,464 respectively.

The salaries of judges of the District Courts are fixed by Parliament and one object of providing in the Act itself for the yearly salary is that it provides a measure for securing an independent judiciary. The consideration and determination from time to time of salaries to be paid to judges is not an easy matter and it is not easy to apply what is known as "relativity" to these particular officers.

District Courts Acts [24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2849

As regards relativity, it might be here mentioned, for what it is worth, that senior officers of the State Public Service were fairly recently given certain salary increases, and salaries of permanent heads of departments and of officers with equal classifications were increased by £150 per annum. Relativity might also be considered in relation to comparable salaries payable by the Commonwealth and other States and, to a limited extent, a comparison with general standards of professional remuneration outside the Government service.

I may say that the remuneration for judges of District Courts, as proposed in this Bill, is considerably less than the salary of £7,000 per annum and £150 per annum allowance paid in New South Wales and is almost the snme as that paid in Victoria, although in that State five County Court judges who are chairmen of various courts or boards receive salaries up to £5,180.

So far as concerns the proposal to appoint a chairman of District Courts, there appears to be need for some judge who may transact work and be approached on behalf of the District Courts. In the Supreme Court there is, of course, the Chief Justice, and in the Magistrates Courts there is a Chief Stipendiary Magistrate who not only acts on behalf of all stipendiary magistrates of the metropolitan Bench but also acts in certain administrative matters relating to country magistrates.

That independence of District Court judges in the performance of their judicial duties, which we are so anxious to preserve, does require what may be termed an administrative head.

It is proposed that the salary increases take effect as from 1 March, 1965.

Mr. Walsh: Who will appoint the chairman of District Courts?

Dr. DELAMOTHE: He will be appointed in exactly the same way as judges are today.

I commend the proposed Bill to hon. members.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (11.46 a.m.): The Minister has indicated that this Bill has three principles. Because of certain statements that are sometimes made about the Opposition's attitude to various matters, I want to make it clear once again that we feel, as a general principle, that if a Bill contains several principles, one or more of which are acceptable to us and others, at least we should afford the Government the opportunity of printing the Bill so that we can have a look at what it contains. It naturally follows that many legislative enactments that are submitted here contain principles which can be regarded as good and deserve the support of all hon. members. But in a Bill which contains good principles there may be clauses that evoke very strong criticism, to the extent that hon. members feel there is justification to call for a division.

Yesterday, when a Bill was introduced to deal with certain alterations to the Supreme Court Act, I said that if the Minister could demonstrate to us justification for amendments to correct the situation brought about by the unusual circumstances of the absence from the State of the Chief Justice and the death of the Senior Puisne Judge, it would seem to me to be obvious that some remedial action on the part of the legislature would be required. If that fact were acknowledged-no-one attempted to dispute or argue that fact yesterday-in my view it would be foolish to deny the Minister the opportunity to correct something that needed correcting. Therefore, to vote against a Bill that contained a good provision and also a provision with which we were not in agreement would, in the Opposition's view, be wrong.

I am not castigating anybody in particular, because it is the inalienable right of every hon. member to act as he thinks the circumstances before him entitle him to act. I am merely pointing out for the record that as a general rule the Opposition feels that if a Bill contains more than one principle, some of which may have some desirable features, the Bill should be printed, and we should reserve our criticism or opposition until the appropriate Committee stage when we can vote against a clause or seek its amendment.

I mentioned yesterday that we considered it was an inappropriate time to make salary changes of the nature contained in the Minister's recommendations to the Committee. I give this sort of preamble because the same circumstances obtain today. Had the Bill merely contained provision for an increase in the salaries of judges I would have had no hesitation in committing the Opposition to vote against its introduction. It would be obviously inconsistent to oppose the amount to be granted to Supreme Court judges and then agree to the amount to be granted to District Court judges, unless it could be shown that the amount to be granted to District Court judges was not higher than an equivalent amount given to Public Service officers generally. I do not think it is fair, merely because a person is occupying an important position in the service of the Crown where the remuneration is determined by a specific statute, that he should be denied adjustments made in conformity with other wage or salary increases which may be operating generally throughout the community.

Although I was very much criticised at the time, I think there was some merit in the principle I suggested some time ago, that is, that in most of these cases we should try to adopt some formula which varies automatically. In determining what is a just formula there is room for much argument. I am not suggesting that the formula put forward on that occasion, an occasion when we dealt with parliamentary salaries was the perfect answer. There was widespread opposition when this Government hurriedly repealed


that II'l:easure because it related to parliamentanans. I did not, nor did my colleagues who supported the proposal, want to create ? situation in which members of parliament, Judges, or anyone else, should be in sheltered privileg_ed positio_ns where they would get somethmg to which they were not entitled.

On that occasion the arrangement was that we chose a salary level equivalent to the parliamentary level. According to my memory of this matter, the Parliamentary Draftsman at the time indicated that the office of the Assistant Under Secretary was about the only one which, over many years had not been changed by various amend: ments to the statutes. It will be appreciated by the Minister that the Director of Education became the Director-General of Education and that the·re were many other changes in designation. The designation of Assistant Under Secretary had not changed over a long period, so that there was nothing sinister or ulterior in selecting it. It was a permanent classification which approximated the salary received by members of Parliament.

It would be less embarrassing to the recipients of these proposed increases if, by some formula, we could link them to a certain office or designation. I go so far as to say that this is a matter that could well be approached in a non-party spirit, to avoid arguments and recriminations. The Opposition does not want to deny wage justice. If it is good enough for 25 to 50 officers in the Public Service to get a rise of £150 I see nothing wrong with judges getting £150, or some amount near that. However, the present scheme is on a hit-and-miss basis because increases in judges' salarie·s are always granted in nice, round figures. In the Commonwealth Public Service heads of departments get astronomical in~reases up to as much as £1,500. They are pa1d about £8,000 a year. We do not wish to deny salary justice to any employee, whether he be the Chief Justice, or someone lower in the community, but the present method of granting increases is quite wrong_ There is no real attempt to try to put it on a stable basis. It is akin to the old story about worker's compensation. Every union organisation goes through every Act in the Commonwealth to ascertain what is given for the loss of a limb, and so on. I do not blame them for doing so, because I would do exactly the same myself. Legislation is then introduced raising the amount by £100 or £200. As soon as that is done the people in the other States say "Until this adjustment we were better off by £100." There is a constant argument for a review not because it is just, but because somebody else does it. If the Commonwealth Government is not interested in creating stability the State Governments should be, and they should take some action. That was my purpose in debating the matter yesterday and I think that was the purpose of all other hon. members. We do not think this round amount of £250 is right, and we intend to

vote against it. I do not know if the Minister will consider an amendment. I do not think we should deny these people appropriate increases. It is the Government's responsibility to specify what these amounts should be. We are becoming a salary-determining tribunal in these cases, and that should not be one of our essential functions.

This Bill contains three principles, and at this stage the Opposition is in general agreement with two of them. The first is to increase the amount up to which District Courts have jurisdiction. The Bill increases the amount in certain cases from £1,500 to £3,000, and in certain other cases from £2,500 to £5,000. That seems to be an eminently sensible approach. As the hon. member for South Brisbane reminded me a short time ago, for all essential purposes a District Court judge carries out the same responsibilities and functions as a Supreme Court judge except that his jurisdiction is confined to crimes the sentences for which do not exceed 14 years. The more grave charges involving heavier sentences must necessarily go before the Supreme Court.

Although we expressed mild opposition to the establishment of the District Courts, we indicated that it was probably a practice which might well be tried. I think it has proved successful; nobody would say today that District Court judges have not been of use or that they do not do a good job. However, their appointment has not materially lessened the congestion at the Supreme Court. Despite the appointment of more Supreme Court and District Court judges there is still at least a 15 months' delay in the hearing of civil cases in the Supreme Court. That is an undesirable state of affairs.

Many people have considered ways and means of overcoming this problem. I put this as a challenge to the Minister: during his term as Minister for Justice will he convene a conference of the Chief Justice, the stipendiary magistrates, and others, to see if some of the processes involved in ensuring that British justice is done can be shortened? My colleague the hon. member for South Brisbane knows better than I the problems and requirements of this matter. There is wide acceptance of the fact that many of these matters should be examined in an effort to cut down the costs of litigation and the lengthy processes involved. For instance, many of the documents have to be produced in an original form; photostat copies cannot be used.

The New South Wales Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Herron, was sent by the Government on a world tour five or six years ago to see whether he could bring back some recommendations to do what I am suggesting might be done here. He furnished a report to the New South Wales Government, which as a result. introduced some measure of reform. ·

I am not unaware of the difficulties and complexities of this matter. I do not suppose there is any aspect of business life as strong


as the legal profession with its practices, vocations, rights, and all that sort of thing. Its members are in a special position because of the nature of their work. There is a general disposition in the legal profession to be somewhat unwilling to shorten proceedings or to provide a basis on which its members' remuneration might be curtailed. I clashed once with a previous Chief Justice, in his private capacity, when I said I did not think that the law always did the right thing in seeing that British justice was done· for instance, an adultery case instituted by a poor old fettler would last for seven or eight minutes, whereas a case involving a company director would probably last for fi~e or six days. I think the newspapers Will bear out that general contention now loosely put forward. Only recently we have seen the Reid Murray case and other cases concerning company directors continuing day after day, whilst actio!ls involving ordinary persons 111 the commumty are dealt with very quickly. -

. ~n Engla~d the Labour Party is at present giV111g consideration to the establishment of famil>: courts. I do not want to trespass now 111 that field. All I wish to say is that the purpose behind these moves is to try to streamline the operation of the system of justice followed in this State. The recomm_endatioD; in England was approved by a Wide sectiOn of the Press, and I must in truth say that it was violently attacked by another section. An examination of the situation was made by some eminent men in England who felt that there was quite ~ lot o.f mer.it if!- sucJ:t a sy~tem, particl:llarly 111 dealmg With JUVemle dehquency which is now one of the main problems faci~g society. It _was felt by e~peri_enced people who gave evidence at the 111qmry that it was undesir~ble, particularly in the initial stages, to Impose gaol sentences on juveniles. It was considered much better to take some corrective action. Family courts appear to be a means whereby, if there is a chance of rehabilitation, some good can perhaps be don~. T!Jis matter is being examined by the 111com111g Labour Government in England a little more actively and sympathetically than it was by the retiring Conservative Government.

I put that forward because I know the Minister applies himself industriously to these matters. Whilst we sometimes criticise him, I think it is only fair to commend his industry and interest in some of these problems. I hope what I have mentioned will excite his interest at some future time.

The third principle contained in the Bill concerns the appointment of a chairman of District Courts. Superficially this seems to me to be a good idea. In the Supreme Court the Chief Justice co-ordinates the work of the judges, gives advice to judges on certain matters, and is officially their spokesman in relations with the Minister. There is a Chief Stipendiary Magistrate in the Magistrate~ Court, and there seems to me to be merit in

the proposal to make a corresponding appointment in the District Courts. Because of his added responsibility, the appointee should receive a salary in excess of that paid to the other judges. I will not canvass this subject in any greater detail, as no doubt the hon. member for South Brisbane will wish to speak on it. I think there is merit in this proposal.

Having made those general observations, I should like to say that we agree at this stage with two of the principles contained in the Bill. To be consistent, we will e·xercise our right at a later stage to express disapproval of the salary increases suggested, not because we wish to deny anyone his proper entitlement but because we want to focus public attention on the inflationary factors operating within our economy.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (12.4 p.m.): When the last amendment to the District Courts Act was brought before us, in September, 1963, the proposal was to increase the salaries of District Court judges by £500. At that time an increase of 10 per cent. in marginal rates for skilled tradesmen had been granted throughout Australia. In many cases, that represented very little additional payment to workers in the community. A comparison between the 4s. to 5s. a week that many workers received and the £500 a year that the Government found it necessary to give District Court judges as a result of the 10 per cent. marginal increases granted created a situation in which lower-paid workers and the industrial movement generally felt very justifiable resentment. In many instances. leading public servants, District Court judges and Supreme Court judges would say, "We are getting £250 on this occasion, but out of that we may have to pay anything up to £200 to the Commonwealth Government in taxation." All the Government is doing by increasing the salaries of these people year after year is paying out Government money that is sorely needed for other purposes, subsidising Commonwealth Government revenue, and giving very little advantage .to those who are receiving the increases.

That is one point, but the main point IS the very natural resentment that many people in the industrial movement in Queensland feel because they are not receiving treatment similar to that meted out to leading public servants, District Court judges and Supreme Court judges. Since September 1963, workers covered by Commonwealth awards in this State have received only a 10s. a week incre-ase in the Commonwealth basic wage. At that time in 1963 wage margins were increased by 10 per cent., and because of this increase the Government saw fit to increase the salaries of District Court judges by almost £10 a week. Although, as I said, the Commonwealth basic wage has not increased by more than 10s. a week since 1963, another £5 a week is now to be added to the salaries of District Court judges. Therefore, the picture being projected into


the minds of members of the industrial movement in Queensland, particularly those who are receiving low wages, is a very bad one.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, instead of bringing forward increases year after year, the Government might adopt an arrangement similar to that which it has adopted relative to the salaries of members of Parliament. It has decided that members' salaries should be the subject of some sort of an investigation or survey every three years, and up to date it has followed that procedure. In my opinion, it could well adopt a similar procedure in relation to the salaries of leading public servants, District Court judges and Supreme Court judges. In the last four or five years there have been I think, two or three increases in thei; salaries, and each time such an increase is made resentment is created in the minds of ordinary working men in the community. I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition said on that subject.

The proposed legislation seeks also to increase the jurisdiction of District Courts to claims involving a maximum of £5,000. The present maximum is £2,500. I understand that the maximum of £5,000 applies only in certain cases. When the District Courts Act was before this Assembly previously the limit was increased from £1500 to £2,500, and on this occasion the Minister did not mention a minimum figure. No doubt the scale of damages is graduated through to a maximum of £5,000. In my opinion this amount is inadequate. Contributory negligence would be an element in a number of cases, and the apportionment of damages in those cases would be far more difficult than in cases in which it is quite obvious that only one party has been negligent. In cases in which damages up to £5,000 are claimed. the judge would have to assess the extent of the injuries and their effect on the future livelihood of the person concerned, the contributory negligence, if any, and the damages to be awarded, and this would be a difficult task for him. Men who are competent in law to make decisions such as this, have been appointed as judges of the District Court in Queensland, and I think that District Court judges should be competent to hear all motorcar cases, as they are described, irrespective of the amount of damages claimed.

There should be an appeal, both in law and on matters of fact, from a District Court judge's decision in regard to the apportionment of damages, regardless of the amount of damages claimed in cases where injury occurs as the result of a motor-car accident. I have in mind one case in which I believe a very grave injustice has been done by the law in this State mainly because of delay between the accident and the hearing of the case.

The case to which I refer is that of a man named Robert Conlon who, on 7 June 1960, sustained an injury whilst walking across Webster Road, Stafford, at nighttime. He was knocked down by a motor

vehicle and very severely injured. His case has been only recently heard by the court. He sustained severe injury to his head which no doubt will come against him later in life. He is still wearing a pin in his hip.

This man, during his 58 years before the accident, had been particularly active. He is still interested in football and on that night was in fact doing some work for a local football club.

However, regardless of those facts I think it is important to remember that this case took at least 3-!- years to be resolved. I think that if the District Court were to be given jurisdicton in all of these cases, regardless of the amount of damages claimed, it would possibly expedite the hearing of them. Many of these cases are very important to the people concerned, particularly those in the low-wage bracket in the community. Many of them are unable to go to work for 12 months following an accident, and are not eligible for worker's compensation and have to go on to sickness benefit during the period they are off work. This often means real hardship for them and their families. If there is any possible way in which the hearing of these cases can be expedited, every consideration should be given to it.

As I have said, this matter is particularly important to the lower-wage group within the community. The particular case I have mentioned is most unfortunate and I think its circumstances should be further considered by the Minister. The victim was unconscious for a period of three or four days. Because of a practice introduced under this legislation of allowing police evidence to be heard in the courts, the Police Department has been employing one man to visit hospitals and question people who have been injured in accidents. In this case, on the fourth day after this man's accident he was questioned by a police constable at the General Hospital. He had been unconscious for a period of at least three days and was still in such a condition that the medical evidence would disclose that it was impossible for him to give any explanation as to how the accident occurred, but he was supposed to have said to the police constable that he was, in fact, running across the road. Anyone knowing anything about the case would realise that it would be impossible for him to do that, but he was supposed to have said that and it was accepted by the trial judge. The accident occurred within 100 yards of an intersection where there was a "Stop" sign and, in pulling up, the car that knocked him down left skid-marks measuring 45 feet.

I am mentioning this case as an illustration that there should be some initial hearing with an appeal on both law and fact from the findings of the initial trial judge to a judge of the Supreme Court. With that safeguard, I think the District Court is capable of hearing these cases. Regardless of the evidence the trial judge found that the driver of the vehicle was in no way guilty of negligence.


Because of the extent of the IUJunes sustained by the injured person, had the trial judge found the driver guilty of negligence, the damages he would have had to access would have been considerable. But because he was not prepared to assess very great damages the trial judge found that there was no negligence at all on the part of the car driver, despite the fact that no medical evidence was brought forward to show that that man was not capable of giving a lucid explanation of how the accident happened four days afterwards, after being unconscious for 3:!- days. This man has been told by his legal advisers that it is not possible for him to appeal to the Full Court.

That is one case in point where a definite injustice has occurred to a person who sustained injuries. If we had a different system, with the District Court hearing all these cases and, if necessary, with the assessment of damages being referred to the Supreme Court, with a right of appeal on law or fact, persons who sustained injuries would have a right of appeal in all such matters to a Supreme Court judge.

In the past few years there has been a backlog of cases in both the Supreme Court and the District Court. The hearing of these actions should be expedited. The District Court should hear all cases involving motorcar accidents, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court by the injured person. We cannot have people being placed in a position where they are unable to secure an immediate hearing to receive the damages to which they are entitled. They should not have to wait for 12 months and, in the meantime, perhaps have to keep a wife and family on a pittance.

Mr. BENNETT (South Brisbane) (12.17 p.m.): It is interesting to observe the amendments which have been made from time to time to the District Courts Act. No doubt legal men and the Government viewed with a certain amount of anxiety the activities of the District Court after there had been a hiatus of about 37 years, with no intermediate court between the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court. I think it is fair and true to say that the Labour Government in March 1922 repealed the District Court Act because, to say t_he least, it did not think it was necessary to have a District Court. However, it became abundantly clear when the District Court was reconstituted that any weaknesses, anomalies or defects would be noted and underlined.

I think it is further fair to say-I say it as a Labour man and as a man practising law-that the reconstitution of the District Court has proved an outstanding success in this State. Ironically enough, as my Leader points out, in spite of the functioning of the District Court, and even with the numerical increase in the Supreme Court judiciary, what has been referred to as the Jag in litigation has never been caught up with. I am not suggesting for one moment that that is the fault of the District Court or the Supreme

Court. But it is a rather intriguing and interesting situation that although we have had the extra jurisdiction containing many courts, with a fair number of judges in the intermediate section of the practice of the law, since 1959, if anything, litigation has increased rather than decreased. I suppose it is also correct to say that crime, too, has increased since then.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the lao is the fault of the Court. There are so7ne queer reasons for it. There has been an increase in population during the period. However, the percentage increase in crime and in the numbers of cases dealt with by the Supreme Court and District Courts is far in excess of the percentage increase in population. It is intriguing to find the !easons. In civil litigation there is, firstly, the mcrease in population. Secondly, many actions that previously never found their way into court are now doing so. District Court litigants can be got into Court within a reasonable time. Previously, for many reasons, perhaps because of litigation neurosis, because of the anxiety and worry involved, because of delay in getting the money being litigated, because of the frustration in waiting to get a case beard, very often litigants settled cases before going to court. Because there are more courts and more judges, we get more actions. Litigants can go to court and have their cases determined properly whereas they used to settle them rather than wait for them to come on for hearing. This is one reason for the increase in litigation, but I do not think it is the complete answer. As my Leader said, in spite of the increased facilities provided by the introduction of the District Court, litigation continues to mount up.

When discussing judges' salaries and judges we hear it claimed, quite untruthfully, that Parliament, the Government, or the Executive Council, has no control over judges. That is not a correct argument. First, I observe that Parliament should not be able to query the judiciary in the ordina1y sense of the term. They must be independent, not only in fact but so far as all appearances are concerned. It will be a sorry day when, and if, Parliament can sit as a court of appeal on the conduct of judges in relation to their decisions and the penalities they impose. There have been suggestions that judges can do as they please, which is not correct. Seeing that we are dealing with an amendment to the District Courts Act, I shall refer only to what control Parliament, or the Government, has under that Act. It has only that control that it should have, and no more.

Section 15 of the Act says-"A Judge shall hold his office during

ability and good behaviour, ... "

Section 16 says-"The Governor in Council may remove

a Judge for incapacity or misbehaviour."


It is not true to say that judges can do as they please. Fortunately, in my time anyway, no authority of the Governor in Council has had to be exercised in the direction referred to, and I hope it will never have to be exercised. I am not saying that there is any vague suggestion that it should be exercised at the present time. It is clearly ridiculous for any hon. member, such as the hon. member for Townsville South, to say that judges can do as they please. The Governor in Council has the right of removal if judges are not performing their task properly.

Mr. Walsh: You mean judges of the District Court?

Mr. BENNETT: There is a right to remove judges of the Supreme Court, too, if need be.

Mr. Walsh: Parliament has that right.

Mr. BENNETT: That is what I mean. Judges cannot do just as they please so far as condact is concerned. It is true to say that they are completely independent otherwiseand they should be independent.

The first principle contained in the Bill increases the civil jurisdiction of the District Court in claims involving accidentsin other words running-down cases, as they are colloquially referred to in the courtsfrom £2,500 to £5,000. I am wholeheartedly in accord with that proposal; I think all fairminded men would be. From a legal point it might be heretical, but I would be in accord with allowing all claims involving negligence on the highway, because negligence, to some extent, is an artificial term.

Reference was made by my Leader and Deputy Leader to the delays in courts. Most of the time taken up by litigation involving running-down cases relates to deciding who was negligent, who caused the accident, and what proportion of negligence attaches to each person involved. That can go on for days, and then, under the Law Reform Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act the court finally has to decide to what percentage the plaintiff was negligent and to what percentage the defendant was negligent, and so on. Very often that is an academic procedure. Different judges, being human beings, award different percentages of contributory negligence. As a result a great deal of consideration, argument, and submissions, is necessary in trying to persuade the judge that a particular individual was negligent only to the extent that his counsel considers him to be.

All of that argument could be eliminated by declaring that any person injured on the highway is entitled to compensation independent of the question of negligence. A person does not voluntarily injure himself on the highway; he does not try to get injured. If we introduced a system under which everybody was entitled to some degree of compensation I suppose there would be the exceptional individual-there would not be many of them-who would deliberately have

himself injured on the highway. But a law could be introduced to exclude that type of person so that insurance revenue could be safeguarded.

Generally speaking, the person who ~s injured on the highway, whether he be negligent or not, is an unfortunate individual who. because of traffic conditions, his own human failings, a temporary lack of concentration, or for some other human reason, is badly maimed on the highway, and then, in order to recover some measure of compensation from the pool or fund that the motorist pays into to indemnify himself against such a happening, he has to prove either that the other fellow was completely negligent or that he himself was not completely negligent.

Mr. Hughes: There are a number of irresponsible youn.g people who play "chicken'' and so forth on the roads. Surely you would not want the prudent motorist held liable for an incident involving them, because they are a hazard on the roads.

Mr. BENNEIT: There is some substance in the suggestion that a person who is deliberately reckless on the highway should not be allowed to recover damages. Perhaps a provision could be inserted in the law that if, in the process of sustaining his injury, he commits a traffic offence, he cannot recover. Perhaps we could overcome that eventuality. Generally speaking, in answer to the hon. member for Kurilpa, it is a rather ironic feature that many of the bodgie drivers and teenage drivers who exhibit recklessness are not the ones who are hurt. Very often those seriously injured on the highway are in the middle-aged group. They are the innocent victims, yet they have to suffer all the anxiety involved in proving that they themselves were not guilty of any negligence. If they are found to be guilty of negligence in some degree, they cannot recover the full amount of damages for the injuries sustained.

By the law of averages, claims on available funds would be evened out by the great savings effected in litigation costs, and the time of the courts. Admittedly legal men would be disappointed at the loss of fees they would sustain, because, in my estimation, two-thirds of the incomes earned at the Bar are derived from appearances in runningdown cases and other matters concerning motor vehicles.

Mr. Walsh: Would you say it is as high as that?

Mr. BENNETT: I would say it is as high as that. I therefore feel that endeavouring to determine who was negligent produces merely academic argument. After all, if. two motor vehicles were involved in an accident and it could truthfully be said that it was a genuine mishap, it is hard to say ~hat would happen if neither driver was deliberately being reckless. In any case, even assuming that one peson was 100 per cent. negligent, although not deliberately so (he may have had a momentary lapse of


concentration, or was perhaps not a particularly skilful driver), if one driver lost a leg or an arm surely the law should say, "We will pay him compensation, anyway, because he has contributed to compulsory third party insurance." Under this type of insurance, if there is injury on the highway someone has to be indemnified for the payment of damages arising from the injury.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. I know that insurance companies will strongly object to my suggestion and oppose it with all the power at their command. I know it is not an easy matter for the Government to handle and that there will be strong opposition in many places to what I suggest. I do not expect such things to be implemented in the immediate future. I am, however, fully confident that the time will come, perhaps in the not too far distant future, when, in order to relieve the congestion in courts, some system of payment, without any necessity to go to court or decide who was negligent, will have to be provided. In any case, I feel that, with the great increase in the number of motor vehicles using the roads and consequently the amount of revenue obtained from them, the people will demand that Governments in the future agree to such a proposal.

Accepting the law as it is and the jurisdictions granted to the courts, I am wholeheartedly in favour of increasing the accident jurisdiction, if I may so describe it, of the District Court from £2,500 to £5,000. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he said, "Why have any limitation at all?" When the whole matter is boiled down, the law relating to collisions is the same whether a person loses a finger in an accident, or two legs. Admittedly, a person is entitled to much more money for a more serious injury. Although we have District Court judges well able .to deal with the law relating to accidents, traffic rules, quantum of damages, and so forth, they are to be permitted to hear only those claims for damages that do not exceed £5,000. Although in another case the law involved may be exactly the same-it must be the same; it is the law relating to negligence on the highway, and it is the same in the Magistrates Court, for that matter-an artificial barrier is erected and we say that the District Court cannot go beyond that limit. After all, it is only on medical evidence that one can decide, for example, whether the liver has been punctured or whether only a muscle outside the liver has been punctured; but if the liver has been punctured the claim might be, say, for £7,000, which is outside the jurisdiction of the District Court, and the case would have to go before the Supreme Court although all the other circumstances of the accident are the same. The argument in favour of increasing the jurisdiction is sound, but I

cannot see any reason why claims in accident cases before the District Court should be restricted to £5,000.

Mr. WaJsh: Do barristers get higher fees for appearing in the Supreme Court than they do for appearing in the District Court?

Mr. BENNETT: Naturally, because appearing in the Supreme Court is a bigg~r responsibility. Usually an appearance m the Supreme Court involves more pleadings. If I had time, I could deal with the complexity of pleadings. I agree with Sir Garfield Barwick, who said that legal jargon should be eliminated wherever possible and complicated pleadings abandoned so that the real issues can be dealt with on the facts instead of on complicated and academic legal arguments. However, if one appears in the Supreme Court, as I said, more pleadings are involved and one's responsibility is greater. The scale of fees laid down indicates that, under certain circumstances, the fees are higher. In any case, barristers do charge higher fees-and rightly sofor appearing in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Walsh: I do not suppose they are likely to be caught up in the proposed stop-work meeting?

Mr. BENNETT: No. I am afraid that legal men could not afford to take a day off. They have to work every day that they have a chance to work.

The monetary jurisdiction of the District Court in other cases is to be increased from £1,500 to £3,000, and again I am in agreement with the proposal. My arguments are similar, too, because the law involved does not change when the amount changes. Section 57 of the District Courts Act says-

"A District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all personal actions where the amount, value or damage sought to be recovered is not more than-

(a) In the case of an action arising out of any accident in which any vehicle is involved two thousand five hundred pounds;

(b) And in any other case one thousand five hundred pounds whether on balance of account or after an admitted set-off or otherwise."

It then contains an exception that places an embargo on the District Court's dealing with jurisdiction of a certain type. It says-

"But, except as hereinafter provided, a District Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any case in which the title to land, or the validity of a devise, bequest or limitation under a will or settlement, is in question."

Again, I know that that exception has existed in the Magistrates Court Act since 1891. It was in the old District Courts Act in 1891, and I know that it is in similar Acts in other Australian States. Why we are

L


saying that lawyers who are above average in ability and who had a general practice in law before being appointed to the District Court Bench cannot deal with matters relating to the title to land, I do not know. For example, although I know that comparisons are odious, the senior judge of the District Court was a practising barrister, and the results that he obtained in the Senior Public examination and in university examinations were far better than those obtained by some of the judges of the Supreme Court. Although he had a general practice at the Bar, was above average in ability, and qualified for appointment to the court, we are saying, in effect, that he does not know anything about the title to land and cannot deal with it in District Court jurisdiction. He would have lost some judges of the Supreme Court in legal arguments on that subject when he was practising as a barrister. I do not know why that exception should be made. I am not blaming the Minister for it, because it has been written into similar legislation in Australia since 1891.

Why it is said that a barrister loses his ability in some field because of his particular type of appointment, I fail to understand. I refer to Judge Andrews, who is the senior judge of the District Court. Had he been appointed to the Supreme Court, he would have been required to deal with that jurisdiction and he would have done it ably and well; yet, because he is appointed to the District Court the law says, in effect, that he is not competent to deal with it because he has been appointed to the District Court instead of the Suoreme Court. I cannot see the purpose of ·these artificial differences created by the law.

The next principle covers the appointment of a chairman of District Courts. I am in agreement with that, too. There has to be some captain of the ship or skipper of the team. If one wishes to make an approach to the District Court in relation to procedure or the formalities of the court at the present time, strictly speaking one does not really know to whom to go. The practice has been to go to the senior man, Judge Andrews, who should be cloaked with the authority of his seniority. I am in agreement with appointing a judge in charge, but I do not know whether "chairman" is a happy term to use. Perhaps it may be used in other States, but we have a Chief Justice for judges of the Supreme Court and a Chief Stipendiary Magistrate for magistrates so why can we not have a Chief Judge of the District Court rather than a chairman? The term "chairman" sounds as if he is presiding over some kind of informal gathering of business men at Lennons, or some such thing. Perhaps we should use a term relating more to the practice of law than to a meeting of people. However this is rather a small matter. '

(Time expired.)

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.42 p.m.): The Minister has clearly outlined the three principles contained in the proposal before the Committee. The first one, of course, relates to the increase in amounts of claims for damages, and so on, that can be heard in civil jurisdiction by the District Court. The increases are from £2,500 to £5,000 and from £1,500 to £3,000 under the respective headings. I suppose there can be no complaint against that proposal, because these adjustments have been made in respect of other jurisdictions over the years, but I am wondering whether the Minister has in mind any change in the maximum and minimum amounts involved in cases that may be heard in the Magistrates Court. These things, I think, should be kept to the same pattern of relativity as in the existing legislation, and since it has been found expedient to bring this proposal down-I suppose for the purpose of assisting in clearing away much of the backlog of litigation-! take it the Minister will be having a look at the Magistrates Court jurisdiction also.

Some reference has been made to the stand taken by the Opposition yesterday in voting with the Government on the introduction of the Supreme Court Acts Amendment Bill. I want to say in that respect that I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and any objections I have to offer will be made on the respective clauses in the Committee stage. I do not vote against the whole of a proposal simply because part of it is bad. I am in the position where I can do that if I wish to, and if I do not wish to I can walk out of the Chamber.

Mr. Hanlon: Unless the parts that are bad are so bad that they condemn the whole Bill.

Mr. W ALSH: If they are as bad as that, one can vote against the introduction of the measure. In this case, as was the case with certain other legislation, if a member wants to speak against a particular clause and vote against it, he can do that when the clause is before the Committee. That is what I propose to do. I propose to vote against the proposed increases in the salaries of District Court judges on the same basis as I explained yesterday in regard to the proposal to increase the salaries of Supreme Court judges.

I agree with what the hon. member for South Brisbane said about the term to be used to designate the senior judge of the District Court, if he can be described in that way. If he is appointed chairman he becomes the senior judge.

By interjection I asked the Minister who would appoint the chairman. He said he would be appointed in the same way as other judges. Of course, that means that Cabinet will appoint the chairman in exactly the same way as it appoints the Chief Justice. However, it is a pity that the inferior term-if I can put it that way-of "Chairman" is to be applied to any of the jurisdictions. I agree

District Courts Acts, &c., Bill [24 MARCH] Land Acts Amendment Bill (1965) 2857

with what the hon. member for South Brisbane said. As the Minister was explaining it, it sounded to me as if it were a football club or a race club. After all, we have a "Chief Justice", a "Chief Stipendiary Magistrate", even a "President" of the Land Court, so why a term like this should be applied to the senior District Court judge I do not know. I do not know whether it is important enough to use a lot of time in discussing it, but it appears to me to bring the jurisdiction into some ridicule. It cheapens it. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to give consideration to changing the designation. Surely that would not be a big amendment to make.

The hon. member for South Brisbane made some very interesting statements about the hearing of motor-car cases. Irrespective of what some people may think of him in respect of other matters, I do not think we should set aside his views on many of these things. ~uch ~f what he said this morning was very mterestmg.

One matter occurred to me which apparently has not been brought out into the open. What about the case of the pedestrian on a footpath? For example, if a pedestrian on a footpath is injured by a motorist in his attempt to save himself from injury what is ~is position? Apparently the perso~ on the rootpath would have no claim. That sort of thing does happen. Of course, we cannot enlarge on such matters under this Bill.

Mr. Bennett: The pedestrian has a claim.

Mr. W ALSH: I am talking about the case of a pedestrian who is injured on the footpath_ by a motorist who was doing everything possrble to avoid a collision with another car, perhaps to prevent not one but half a dozen or more being injured.

Mr. Hughes: There was a photoaraph in "The Courier-Mail" this morning ol' a truck on a footpath.

Mr. W ALSH: If a vehicle goes up onto tl~e footpath and there are no extenuating Circumstances the legal nosition could be quite clear. However, ( do not want to delay the Minister. I know that he would like to reply before 1 o'clock. He can rest assured that my attitude towards the salary increases will be exactly the same as I explained yesterday on the introduction of the measure dealing with the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court.

Hon. P. R. DELAMOl'HE (Bowen~inister for Justice) (12.49 p.m.), in reply: F1rst of all, I express my appreciation to all speakers for their restrained and intelligent approach to this Bill, in marked contradistinction to yesterday. I refer particularly to the hon. member for South Brisbane. I think he has given us today an indication of what he is really capable of. I look forward to similar indications in the future. After all, we criticise him at times, and when he is deserving of praise he should get it.

Various points of very great interest were brought forward. I have made a note of them all. I propose to examine them very closely between now and the second-reading stage, when I shall reply to them after considered thought.

Motion (Dr. Delamothe) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Dr. Delamothe, read a first time.

LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (1965)

INITIATION

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Land Acts, 1962 to 1964, in a certain particular." Motion agreed to.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE


Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (12.52 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Land Acts, 1962 to 1964, in a certain particular."

The Bill provides for increases in the salaries of the President and four members of the Land Court. The President's salary is to be increased by £250 to £5,500, and the salary of the members by the same amount, to £5,000. These increases are to operate from 1 March last and will retain the same relativity in salary between the President and the members of the court.

The last increase in the salaries of the President and members of the court applied as from 1 January, 1963, and of course there have been variations in the Public Service Award since that date. The increases now to be paid to the President and members of the Land Court have been fixed, having regard to the upward movement of salaries in the Public Service since 1963.

The Land Court is an independent tribunal constituted under the Land Acts with jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters which that Act and certain other Acts require to be determined. Whilst the President and members of that court do not come within the scope of the Public Service Acts or award, it is only reasonable that, in determining the salary of members of the court, regard be had to the increases in salary which have occurred in the Public Service. That has been taken into account in fixing the salaries in the Bill. I commend the Bill for the consideration of the Committee.

L

2858 Land Acts Amendment Bill (1965) [ASSEMBLY] Land Acts Amendment Bill (1965)

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (12.54 p.m.): The Bill reduces the problems we were discussing earlier to one principle, namely, that of salaries. I indicated to the Premier this morning that it was not our general desire to oppose the introduction of Bills when they contained more than one principle, to some of which the Opposition would be happy to lend its support. For the reasons which I and other hon. members on this side, and some on the other side of the Chamber, advanced yesterday, we feel that in this instance we should give effect to our intention and vote against the introduction of the measure, because it deals specifically with increasing salaries by £250.

The Opposition will vote against this Bill to focus attention on the points made yesterday by several Opposition speakers in regard to this general amount of £250. I make it abundantly clear that if the Government brought down a measure in the future which reflected truly the increases awarded to officers in the Public Service, the Opposition would have no objection to it. If, for instance, somebody else received £161 or £175, we would be quite happy to see that the amount was passed on. What we object to is that there seems to be a round figure used in these cases, and as an indication of our protest, and in an effort to stop this inflationary spiral getting out of hand, we will vote against the Bill. As Parliamentarians we had no hesitation in accepting the tribunal's recommendation of £148 10s. There was no suggestion that the amount should be increased by even 30s. to make it £150. Yet the Government jumps from odd figures to round figures of £250 or £500, as the case may be.

I do not want to be guilty of repetition. What I said this morning set out clearly my views and the views of the Opposition. We do not want to deny the granting of increases to any person employed by the Crown, whether he be the Chief Justice or some other person covered by a particular statute under which the authority of Parliament has to be obtained. But there should be some examination of this general problem to see that these people get automatically what is a fair increase.

I do not subscribe to this procedure. Perhaps I might agree in the case of the AuditorGeneral, because he is answerable to Parliament rather than to the Government or anybody else. Some public servants must be put into a position of public humiliation, I suppose, because people in such a position as mine have to exercise their rights in this Assembly in directing attention to the salaries they are receiving. I said yesterday that we have to pay for brains, and I think we should. However, I do not see anything wrong with some sort of approach being made that will avoid this necessity.

It has been said that Parliament should be the watchdog. I do not know whether Sir James Holt is covered by a special Act

of Parliament but he is probably one of the highest p~id men in the service. The Government can adjust his salary internally, but it cannot do it for officers such as the Commissioner for Railways, Land Court members, and Supreme Court judges. Why the distinction? If it was done internally there would not be this argument from time to time. I am the last one to deny proper and justifiable increases to these people.

The only way we can direct attention to this type of thing is to express our disapproval. If the Premier introduced a measure that embodies the top rate given to people on comparable salaries, we would have no quarrel with it. But we will protest against the present procedure, as I have indicated to the Premier, and we intend to vote against the Bill.

Question-That the motion (Mr. Nicklin) be agreed to-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 33 Mr. Anderson , Armstrong

Beardmore

Mr. Knox

, Bjelke· Petersen Cam m

, Campbell Chinch en

., Cory Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Harrison Herbert

, Hiley , Hodges , Houghtou , Hughes , Jones, V. E.

NOES, 23 Mr. Aikens

Baxter Bennett

, Bromley Davies Dean Donald

, Dufficy , Duggan

Graham Hanlon Houston Inch

PAIRS

Lickiss Low McKechnie Munro

, Murray Nick! in Pi! beam

,, Pizzey Richter Row Sullivan Tooth

Tellers: Mr. Lee

, Wharton

Mr. Lloyd , Melloy

Mliller Newton

, O'Donnell , Thackeray

Tucker , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. J ones, R.

, Sherrington

Mr. Chalk Mr. Gunn Fletcher , Mann

, Carey Marsden , Rae , Byrne , Lonergan , Wallis-Smith ,. Smith , Hanson

Resolved in the affirmative. Re'Solution reported.

FIRST READING

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

[Sitting suspended from 1.7 to 2.15 p.m.]

Public Service Acts (24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2859

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION


"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Public Service Acts, 1922 to 1963, in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.




"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Public Service Acts, 1922 to 1963 in certain particulars." '

The proposed amendments to the Public Service Acts cover three matters. They concern, firstly, the salary of the Public Service Commissioner; secondly, the administration of the public business; and, thirdly, the method of payment of salaries to persons in the employment of the Crown and of prescribed corporations and instrumentalities.

I shall deal first with the salary of the Public Service Commissioner. The Bill provides that in lieu of a salary of £4,950, subject to certain basic-wage adjustments which presently amount to £39 per annum, a salary of £5,250, representing an increase of £300 Per annum, shall be paid as from 20 July 1964. This will coincide with the date of the last adjustment made to the Public Service Award.

This increase follows increases granted from 20 July last to officers subject to the Public Service Award, as a result of which the salaries of higher officials in the Crown service not subject to the award were increased by the Governor in Council. As a result of this, the salary of the Commissioner is now less than the salaries of certain officers which, in amount, 'it previously exceeded. Moreover, recent increases in the salaries of public service administrators in other public services have resulted in the Queensland Commissioner being the lowest paid of the commissioners in all States except Tasmania.

The proposed increase will remove the anomaly in salary comparisons within the Queensland Public Service, and at the same time will restore the Queensland Commissioner's salary to its rightful place in comparison with the salaries of commissioners in other Australian States.

Legislation as it presently exists creates a situation in which the salaries of certain higher officials in the Crown service may be increased from time to time by the Governor in Council, whereas, in the case of other officials whose salaries are appropriated by statute, legislation is necessary to give

increases to correct anomalies caused by general public service salary increases. The officers concerned are the Public Service Commissioner, the Commissioner for Railways, and the Auditor-General. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned during discussion on another Bill that it is necessary to bring the salaries of these officers before Parliament whenever increases are to be granted. This Bill will remove the necessity to do that in respect of the salaries of the Public Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Railways, which will in future be dealt with, as are the salaries of other high officials in the Public Service, by the Governor in Council. As the Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, his salary will continue to be fixed by Parliament. I am sure all hon. members will agree that that is the correct thing to do.

Mr. Duggan: I said that this morning.

Mr. NICKLIN: Yes, the hon. gentleman did.

In view of the anomaly that exists, an examination has been made of the possibility of removing the necessity to legislate in the future to vary the salaries of the Commissioner for Railways and the Public Service Commissioner. Inquiries that have been made in other States reveal that the Western Australian Public Service Act contains a provision to the effect that the Commissioner shall receive an annual salary which shall be-

(i) not less than an amount stipulated in the Act; and

(ii) not more than such sum as the Governor is authorised to determine from time to time whenever he thinks fit.

The principles of this Western Australian legislation have been adopted in the prescriptions within the Bill now under consideration. The effect of these principles is-

(i) that minimum salaries shall be prescribed for the position of Commissioner, the amount of which may not be reduced without legislation; and

(ii) that salaries in excess of this minimum salary may be determined from time to time by the Governor in Council.

r think hon. members will agree that that is a better way of dealing with the salaries of high officials of the Public Service, which now have to come before Parliament each time there is a general increase in the salaries of public servants.

I turn now to the second point-the administration of the public business of the State. I should mention that, at present, there is no statutory provision for the departmentalising of the Crown Service or for the allocation to departments of specified phases of business.

Members will appreciate the extensive nature of the Crown Service and the diversified aspects of its operation. The annual report of the Public Service Commissioner showed that there were 68,960 employees

2860 Public Service Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

on the Crown payroll as at 30 June 1964, and they were engaged in a wide variety of public services.

The distribution of Government business amongst Ministers of the Crown has raised the question of the desirability of there being statutory authority enabling the division of the Crown Service into departments and the allocation to these departments of specified phases of Government business. Such machinery exists in the Public Service Acts of the States of South Australia and Tasmania, and the Commonwealth Constitution Act enables the Governor-General in Council to establish departments of State of the Commonwealth.

The prescriptions of the Bill now under consideration have not been restricted to departmentalising the Public Service but have been made sufficiently wide to include the whole of the Queensland Crown Service, seeing that substantial sections of that service are excluded from the provisions of the Public Service Acts.

The proposed amendments to the Act make provision whereby the Governor in Council may, from time to time-

(i) Establish or discontinue Departments of State;

(ii) Determine the names of such departments;

(iii) Distribute the business of the State and the employment of the Crown amongst such departments;

(iv) Determine the offices and services which shall comprise such departments; and

(v) Assign or re-assign sections of departments, including officers and employees, to new or existing departments.

The contemplated amendments are only of a machinery nature and will form an established statutory provision for action of the type mentioned. To this extent, they will improve and facilitate the methods of business distribution.

I turn now to the last provision in the proposed Bill, which relates to the methods of salary payments. I inform the Committee that these prescriptions have been introduced as a result of the projected system of decimal currency and the advent of automatic data processing.

In the Crown service, the monthly payment of salaries was changed to a twicemonthly payment in May 1923, and this, in turn, was converted to a fortnightly payment in July 1933. Notwithstanding this, salaries are still expressed in annual amounts which, by a clumsy and cumbersome method, are computed to fortnightly payments. The change to decimal currency that will take place in a year's time has been designed to simplify monetary calculations. In the Crown Service there could, with advantage, be a further simplification by converting salaries on an annual basis to salaries on a fortnightly basis and making payment accordingly.

Following an investigation by an expert committee, a formula for a change has been adopted. This provides for the conversion of annual salaries to fortnightly ones with a rounding off so that no person will suffer a monetary loss. Further, the result will be readily adaptable to decimal currency adjustments. The new provision has been drafted so that an annual salary can be continued where this is considered desirable. But for the purposes of actual payment this salary may be expressed as, and paid at, a fortnightly rate.

I stress that the provision is an enabling one and it need not necessarily apply to all salaries. Discretion can be exercised in its application. I think hon. member will agree that that is a very wise provision.

For the purposes of uniformity of action, however, it would be desirable that its application should be as extensive as is reasonably appropriate.

Deductions from salaries-some of which are taxation, superannuation contributions, insurance premiums, and things of that nature -will also be computed and made on a fortnightly basis. Hon. members will appreciate the advantages of the new arrangement if they consider its effects.

Mr. Duggan: You are not thinking about making 50 weeks in the year instead of 52, or anything like that?

Mr. NICKUN: No. I do not think that would be a very popular suggestion.

The advantages of the new arrangements are-

(i) Except where salaries are varied, officers will receive equal net payments each fortnight throughout the year instead of differing amounts as at present.

(ii) The f01inightly amounts can be readily converted to decimal currency;

(iii) Salary computations will be made more easily and quickly, thus-

(a) reducing the amount of programming work for A.D.P.; and

(b) Simplifying calculations and operations where these are made mentally and manually.

The alterations to the machinery provisions of the Act are designed to meet modern conditions and new circumstances in the rapid changes which are being made in our business and public administration.

I think all hon. members will appreciate the need for the suggestions that have been made in regard to the payment of Crown salaries. Those are the only provisions in the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (2.28 p.m.): This Bill differs quite considerably from the one we discussed before lunch inasmuch as the previous Bill was confined solely to the necessity for awarding increases to members of the Land Court. In this instance provision

Public Service Acts [24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2861

is made for an increase in the salary of the Public Service Commissioner, as well as for doing certain other things. It is for that reason that we will not oppose the introduction of the Bill. However, as a matter of principle, we will vote against the salary increase specified for the Public Service Commissioner.

Mr. Nicklin: Surely you are not going to deny him the same advantages as are enjoyed by any other employee in the Public Service?

Mr. DUGGAN: I thought I made it perfectly clear before lunch that we do not want to deny anybody; we think he is entitled to an increase.

I am not trying to focus attention on the parliamentary position in this connection, but I emphasise it because it is convenient to do so. What we object to is that if an ordinary employee has an application before the Industrial Commission his wage per hour is worked out in fractions of a penny-31/60ths of Id., and so on. It is not rounded off and the commission does not say, "It will be 1 Os. 6d. an hour or 15s. 9d. an hour." It says, "It will be 15-s. 9-13/47d. an hour," which is a very involved calculation. As I -say, the increase in parliamentary salaries was fixed at £148 10s. In that case the Government had no compunction in having an expert committee work it out and the committee did not come to any rounded figure of £150; it set the figure at £148 1 Os.

The point we are making is that if the Public Service Commissioner is entitled to an increase-and I say he is-it should not be at this rounded figure of £300 but at the figure that was awarded to the next highest officer below him. I am not saying that there is no merit in the argument that when the next hi!!hest officers to the Commissioner for Railways, the Auditor-General and the Public Service Commissioner receive an increase of £150, without Parliament's sanction being obtained, these senior public servants should also receive an increase in salary. It is a moot point whether it should be confined to £150 or £175. But some definite formula should be laid down rather than this tendency to round it off to the nearest £50 or £100.

l\1r. Aikens: And the nearest £100 in advance.

l\.1r. DUGGAN: There has to be a formula. I made that point this morning. It is not that I want to focus attention on parliamentary salaries. I made a sincere effort years ago to have a formula laid down. It might not have been the right one, but at least it was a formula. On the basis on which it was applied at the time I do not think it could be argued against. It is true that subsequently there were quite fantastic increases in the salaries of top public servants and, if the formula had applied right through, parliamentary salaries would now be much higher than they are.

The Premier cannot have it both ways. He does not say to the Parliamentarian that he is to have a certain salary plus basic-wage adjustments, but he does say it to t~e Public Service Commissioner. He mentiOned a figure of £39.

Mr. Nicklin: Your Government was responsible for that.

Mr. DUGGAN: I am merely pointing out what obtains. I do not want to enter into hostilities with the Premier. I am trying to discuss this matter calmly. Provision is being made for an increase from £4,950 to £5,250, together with the basic-wage adjustment of £39 and any subsequent variations. On the one hand there is an automatic adjustment. In other words, a formula is being applied in one respect. Admittedly the cost-of-living adjustment is also applied to other members of the Public Service. We resent the approach that provides for an increase of £300. I do not want to repeat the arguments we used a aainst the increases in judges' salaries. It should not be necessary to keep on repeating them merely for the record.

I am in agreement with the proposal to adopt the Western Australian system in regard to future salary movements. Of course, this matter has not been discussed by our committee. Our policy on legislation is determined by Caucus decisions and I am bound by those decisions. If Caucus elects to do something different from what I say today I certainly will reflect that opinion in subsequent speeches, but at this stage I am not opposed to the principle of what the Premier has in mind about adopting the Western Australian system to save this partial humiliation to the Public Service Commissioner when he knows that these other people get big salaries. In this regard I think the Press is always very unfair. Some years ago when under secretaries got increases of about £850 a year-in one or two isolated cases more than that-Parliamentarians received £400, but all the Press publicity was directed towards what we received.

The office of the Public Service Commissioner is a tremendously important one. I did not have an opportunity to look at the Act today but I have done so on many occasions over the years. Frankly, I have always been rather surprised and impressed by the Public Service Commissioner's responsibilities to the Premier. He is charged with the responsibility of advising on all sorts of matters. To some degree the public appreciation of the person who holds the office of Public Service Commissioner is dependent on his forcefulness and personality, or his desire either to seek publicity or to remain virtually anonymous. Mr. Fraser is a very modest and self-effacing man who does not project himself forward to the same degree as did Mr. J. D. Story. Everyone knew that very often Mr. Story was the author and architect of many actionssometimes it was by direction and sometimes of his own volition-by the Government on various matters. A certain image was created


outside of just what he was doing and the public felt he was a very important and guiding hand for the Government in matters of reorganisation and implementation of public plans and proposals. I suppose that the late Mr. McCracken, to a slightly lesser extent, did the same sort of thing. I do not say in any sense of criticism of Mr. Fraser that he has elected to remain as the man behind the scenes. If anything, that is in his favour. He is a very valuable officer who has given great service to the Crown. I make it abundantly clear that the Opposition does not think he should not get some increase in salary. However, the increase should not be any less than that of his next senior officer who received an increase recently, and it should not be very much more, if anything above it.

We should call a halt to this arithmetical progression whereby we are reaching a fantastic situation. In the Commonwealth, heads of departments have received increases of £1,000. In years gone by the increases amounted to £50 or £100, but now that we have arithmetical progression, the £100 becomes £200, the £400 goes to £800 and the £800 to £1,600. That is what is happening in the higher echelons of the Commonwealth Public Service, and we are doing it on a less impressive scale here. I do not think that anyone can argue that a salary of £5,250 is not reasonable. There was a time when, if one went through the probable ways and means of expenditure of the Queensland Government, one would find very few people on £2,000 a year. However, on a glance through the schedule today one finds that there are virtually hundreds of people in the Public Service who receive in excess of £2,000. I suppose that is brought about partly by the recognition that public servants may not previously have been paid enough, and partly by the decline in the value of money. Those are the two chief reasons for the great alteration.

We are debating the ground of these round amounts and comparing what happens here with all the trouble that the worker has to go to in getting consideration of his claims. Our criticism is not levelled against Mr. Fraser personally. This Bill merely provides us with a convenient measure by which we can focus public attention on what is happening in the high places and the low places.

It is a matter of regret that Mr. Fraser happens to be the meat in the sandwich. I have nothing personal against him. I regard him as a friend and, as the Opposition Leader and a member of Parliament, I have a very high regard for his personal and professional qualities. We do not want to cut him down. This is just a means whereby we can focus attention on the indifference of governments all over the Commonwealth to demonstrate that the principle of comparing like with like is reaching foolish and silly proportions. The cycle is ended with one adjustment, and then it begins again. It is progressive. The

national economy will be affected unless someone does something about it and we will find ourselves in trouble-in Queer Street.

I am not opposed personally to what the Government proposes to do in respect ~f future adjustments for this office. This morning I had an opportunity to look at the salary of the Co-ordinator-General of Public Works. It is--

Mr. Nicklin: It is £6,325 10s.

Mr. DUGGAN: I thank the Premier for that information. The occupant of that position is getting considerably more than the Public Service Commissioner but his salary does not come before Parliament. The amount is not the de·termining factor. I see no reason why the Public Service COJ?· missioner's salary should come before Parliament any more than the Co-ordinatorGeneral's salary should.

The second point mentioned by the !-"remier was the administration of public busmess. I think this is probably desirable. I do not know that I absorbed the full significance of what the Premier said; not because it was not clearly stated, but because .of what is involved in it. If I understood It correctly, it appears to me to be a d.esirabl~ step and will lead to greater efficiency m t.he Public Service. I do not see why the Premier should be held responsible for Government policy generally. He has to take the responsibility for a Minister's mistake. But he should be able to ask the chief departmental officers in the Public Service to accept that responsibility for Crown employees generally. He should be able, as a matter of right, to go to these depa~tm~nts and make suggestions on re-orgamsatiOn. It is only right that he should have that power. I am not opposed to that.

The Premier indicated certain situations which might arise in the establishment or discontinuance of the names of departments, and so on. As a matter of interest, I should like the Premier to tell us what the position is now.

Mr. Nicldin: It is done by proclamation.

Mr. DUGGAN: In other words, this is merely machinery legislation, and I do not see much wrong with it. I have no quarrel with it. I am interested to know to what extent it is being done.

Mr. Nicklin: This is simply a better method of doing it.

Mr. DUGGAN: At present the Department of Agriculture and Stock can be changed to the Department of Primary Indust:ies, or additional Ministers or under-secretanes can be appointed, and nobody knows anyt~ing about it until it appears in the Press. I JUSt wondered where Parliament came in on this business.

The proposed method of making salary payments seems to be a matter of common sense, because the introduction of deci_mal currency will necessitate certain alteratiOns


that arise from the investigations carried out by an expert committee. No doubt there is a sound basis for those recommendations, which have received the consideration of the Premier and the Government. I offer no objection to those particular points.

Summarising the Opposition's point of view, we do not oppose the introduction of the Bill, because there are several principles involved and we agree with some of them. Therefore it would be foolish to oppose its introduction. We are not opposing the principle covering future determinations of the Public Service Commissioner's salary. But, as a matter of convenience in focusing public attention on this matter in a time of general industrial discontent the Opposition will oppose the clutching from the air of some sort of figure for the higher officers, and will vote against that principle.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (2.44 p.m.): Again I find myself in disagreement with some of the features of the measure outlined by the Premier. Not only do I oppose the increases in salary to be granted to the Public Service Commissioner and certain other officers, but I also oppose--

Mr. Nicklin: You would deny two public servants a rise in salary?

Mr. WALSH: I think the Premier knows me well enough to realise that I consider these matters on principle, not as applying to the individual. After all, I am sitting on this side of the Chamber because I considered that matter seven or eight years ago. Whether it be the Public Service Commissioner or anybody else, in the atmosphere of industrial unrest existing at the moment, and owing to the difficulties facing those who are seeking to get an advance in income to maintain their families, I cannot support any proposal like this which is brought down regularly for very substantial increases in salary.

In saying that, I am not unmindful of the obligations thrust upon the Public Service Commissioner. I have had enough experience to know something of them. Irrespective of the views that one may have on the administration of the Public Service Commissioner's Department generally, I do not think anybody could fault the approach of the present occupant of that office to his administration, or the work that Mr. Fra~er has done not only for this Government, and other Governments, but for the community and the State Service as a whole.

I know that a person occupying a top administrative position is the subject of criticism and ridicule. That applies whether he be the Public Service Commissioner, the Commissioner for Railways, or the Commissioner of Police. Persons charged with public administration attract some criticism that is deserved and much that is undeserved. All I can say is that if the emoluments of the Public Service Commissioner are to be considered on the basis of service rendered to the community, he is

probably worth more than the Premier proposes to give him by the provisions of the Bill. He has done a mighty job-I emphasise this-for the youth of this Sta~e through his administration and that of his officers. They have endeavoured to find positions for very many young people who could not find private employment. There are few people outside the Public Service w!to realise the ramifications of the Public Service Commissioner's Department. It is not suggested, of course, that he should find employment for all who seek jobs in the Public Service.

Like the Premier and me, Mr. Fraser is advancing in years, and I su?gest to t?e Premier that if he could find m the entire service a man with Mr. Fraser's temperament and general qualifications and api?o!nt ~im to set up a section of Crown admmistration to deal with public relations with the industrial community, it would pay worthwhile dividends. I can speak of Mr. Fraser only as I found him in the days when I was a member of the Government that had to look to the Public Service Commissioner's organisation in dealing with some industrial problems. I am sure all will agree that Mr. Fraser, with the qualifications that we know he possesses, would be an ideal officer to fall back on in a dispute such as the present one at Mt. Isa.

I feel that we in Queensland are probably somewhat lacking in adopting this approach to certain problems. The Federal pe_ople ha-:e taken such steps, associated With t~~Ir administration. Irrespective of the politics of the Government of the day, I think the establishment of a public relations branch within the structure of the Public Ser:-ice administration would be a very good thmg. The Government could look to it to bring it into contact with a wider section of t~e industrial community unrelated to public administration.

Anyone who has had experience of Government administration appreciates the value of really worth-while public servants. These are not officers who are out merely to gain the best for themsel-:es, but ones who give genuine public service. O_n my visits to Canberra and other places In the southern States to attend ministerial co?ferences and meetings of the Loan Council, I was never ashamed of the public servants who accompanied the Ministers of the d~y. Never did they compare unfavourably With public servants from the other States. They were well equipped with knowledge of the affairs of the State and gave very valuable assistance to Ministers, including the Premier. From that angle, therefore, I do not argue against this mere pittance of . a~ increase. Again it is a question of pnnc1ple. ~he Premier comes here and says to hard-workmg members of Parliament, "Every three years you can have your salary reviewed." Over a period of nine years he has said, "Well, after consideration, the committee has


recommended that you should receive an increase of £148 a year." On the other hand he has come here with great regularity and reco_mmended i?-creases-whether they were for JUdges, pubhc servants, the Commissioner of Transport, or the Commissioner for Railways, does not matter-of £200, £300, £500, or whatever the figure was.

I think some people are inclined to treat the office of member of Parliament as they :-vould treat a bit of dirt, but I do not mtend to do that. I am not interested in ~h~ particular member who may hold office; It Is the office of member of Parliament that I am interested in. I do not think that members of this Assembly should have to lis~en to gossip in order to find out what adJustments have been made in the allowances of members of Parliament. Every hon. memb~r should be !idvised through a proper authonty what adjustment is beino- made in his expenses or in his salary. I m~ke that observation in passing.

The Leader of the Opposition says he favours the system that the Premier has proposed, under which these increases in salary will not be brought before Parliament. I ~o not favour it. I do not favour anything bemg taken away from this Parliament as I have said repeatedly from this side of' the Chamber: . Parliame_nt now has very limited ?PPOrtumties for discussing and criticising, If necessary, the various offices of public administration. This procedure has been followed for many years, both under this Government and under former Labour Governments, and I am opposed to any proposal that seeks to take away from Parliam~;;t the right to discuss these matters. Givmg the Governor in Council power to determine this or that salary for permanent office.rs of the Public Service may sound all nght on the surface; but if this system has operated for many years under different Government, what is the justification for a <;:ha~ge !it this ~tage? I do not see any JUstificatiOn for It. Perhaps it will remove from Parliament the criticism that has been directed at the Government on the last three Bills that have been introduced and to some ext~nt, on this one,. because or' the proposals to mcrease substantially the salaries of judges of the District Court and the Supreme Court and now of the Public Service Commissioner:

If we rel?ove the necessity to bring Bills before Parliament from time to time seekin"' authm:ity f~r thes~ adjustments, opportunitie~ for discussion will be limited. It is no use anyone telling me that we wiii have an opportunity to discuss them on the Estimates because discussion on the Estimates is limited now, as it was under former Governments It i.s left to the Government of the day t~ decide what Estimates will be brought before hon. members, and it is obvious that we s~a]] not have very much opportunity to discuss matters such as this.

. Now that the Government has obtained mcreases for these officers, I suppose it

will be giving the Commissioner of Police one, too. I suppose there will be an amendment in regard to him.

Mr. Nicklin: No.

Mr. W ALSH: I am pleased to have an assurance in that respect. However I draw attention to the fact that it is said to be convenient for the Governor in Council to do these things. That might sound all right, but it is not consistent with my understanding of the principles of democratic government. I am against handing over the powers of Parliament to the Executive, and I will say so in this Chamber as frequently as I can.

In this Biii the Government is seeking statutory authority to provide for various changes that are taking place in the administration of departments and their allocation to various Ministers. I think it is nearly time the Government gave some consideration to providing more secretarial assistance for members of Parliament. It is very difficult for us at the present time.

Mr. Nicldin: This Biii does not cover that subject.

Mr. WALSH: I hope the Premier will wait until I make my remarks. I have studied this matter and I do not think I can be accused of frequently being irrelevant. The Premier himself made the point in his outline of the Bill. Members have a full-time job now trying to keep pace with the changes that are taking place from time to time as the result of departments being transferred from one Minister to another. A secretarial staff, the members of which are obliged to take dictation from members of Parliament, is provided, but when questions in this Chamber are directed to certain Ministers it is often found that they have to be redirected to other Ministers. The frequent changes that are taking place add a great deal to the mental strain both of members and of the limited staff employed to assist them in carrying out their duties.

The Premier has outlined his proposals and I have no doubt, of course, that they will be carried.

Mr. Niddin: I hope so.

Mr. WAL§H: There is no doubt about that. I would be the last in this Chamber to object to a salary increase to the Public Service Commissioner in a normal way, and, having regard to the individual, if Mr. Fraser was paid for his services to the community I think he would be entitled to more than he is getting now. To confirm that statement, the Premier has compared the salary paid to the Public Service Commissioner with those paid in New South Wales, Victoria, and other States. But I wonder where that gets us. I suppose a proper examination of the question would reveal that the Public Service Commissioner in this State undertakes many duties that are not undertaken by Public Service Commissioners in other States, and if his salary is assessed from that point of


view, instead of submitting that his salary should be at least level with those of Public Service Commissioners in other States one would have to claim that it should be higher. My experience, as the result of attendances at conferences in the South, suggests that the duties of Public Service <;:oJ?missioners in other States are strictly limited to the sphere of public administration in the sense that they are controlling staff. I think the Premier will agree that in Queensland numerous duties are imposed on the Public Service Commissioner outside of the strict duties of his administration as Public Service Commissioner.

I. do !lot k~ow. how far we get by comparmg like With like in this manner. I do ~ot _like. the term. I do not think it is any JUStificatiOn. Although I have no objection to the individual getting the increase, in principle I am objecting to that part of the measure that provides for an increase at this stage while other people are struggling to get enough to meet ever-rising costs and keep their families. Secondly, I am not in favour of the transfer of the powers of Parliament to the Governor in Council.

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (3.1 p.m.), in reply: I think I could S!lY that this Bill has received a mixed receptiOn. Two of the principles seem to meet with the general approval of hon. members opposite, b!Jt there appears to be a good deal of difference of opinion about the important matter of the Public Service Commissioner's salary. I cannot understand the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bundab~rg, both of whom were Ministers in preVIous Governments of this State. Time and time again under similar circumstances both of them have done exactly what is being done today.

Mr. Walsh: That is not true.

Mr. NICKLIN: Of course it is true.

Mr. Duggan: No.

Mr. NICKLIN: This method of fixing the salaries of top public servants has not altered over the years. It happened when both hon. gentlemen were Ministers of the Crown. Both show their complete lack of interest in previous debates because apparently they do not understand how these things are fixed. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that we take a figure out of the air and round it off. How are the salaries of all public servants in this State fixed, including the salary of the Public Service Commissioner? By an award of the State's Industrial Commission.

Mr. Duggan: Heads of departments got £175.

Mr. NICKLIN: In some instances, yes. The method used by the Industrial Commission in adjusting rates under the Public Service A ward is for it to take certain key salaries ranging from the lowest-paid public

94

servant right up to one of the highest, the Deputy Director-General of Health and Medical Services, whose salary is £5,076 10s. Once the key salaries in the various ranges are fixed, adjustments are made for all other public servants in the various grades. The salary of the Public Service Commis·sioner is fixed on that basis, as are the salaries of the Commissioner for Railways and all other top public servants. The timing of the adjustments and the quantum of those salaries are determined by the Industrial Commission, just as are the wages of any other worker in the State. How can hon. members opposite deny to public servants who are compelled statutorily to have their salaries adjusted by Parliament the right to increases granted to other members of the Public Service? I cannot understand their reasoning.

Mr. Walsh: You appointed the committee that denied us the basic-wage adjustments.

Mr. NICKLIN: The hon. member for Bundaberg, who is an expert in running away from the real issue, cannot get away with that statement. This has been the laiddown method followed over the years by which various groups of public servants have their wages adjusted according to determinations of the Industrial Commission. I hope hon. members opposite will review their decision to vote against giving to one of our top, and one of our best, public servants the right to enjoy the salary to which he is entitled as a result of an award made by the Industrial Commission of this State. The only matter on which I am in agreement with the hon. member for Bundaberg is his praise of Mr. Fraser's capabilities.

Mr. Duggan: So am I.

Mr. NICKLIN: Yes, but this is one point particularly for the hon. member for Bundaberg. The Leader of the Opposition also praised Mr. Fraser. The Public Service Commissioner is an excellent officer. There is no doubt that he is very largely responsible for the high standard of public servants in this State. By the methods he has introduced in recent years he has indoctrinated (if I might use that term) recruits to the Public Service. He, or his officers, meet them personally and tell them about their responsibilities as public servants. This advice is valuable to them in their future careers. What a tremendous difference this has made to the young people in the Public Service. I ask hon. members to compare public servants with the servants to be found in the business houses of this State. Public servants stand head and shoulders over them. We have no bodgies in the Public Service, as are to be found in some private institutions. That is because of the very high standard set by Mr. Fraser and his officers. The recruits to the service appreciate it, as do the older members of the service.

Mr. Walsh: One of your own Ministers tried to break that down.

2866 Railways Acts Amendment Bill [ASSEMBLY] Audit Acts Amendment Bill

Mr. NICKLIN: That is why I agree with the provisions in the Bill doing away with the necessity to bring this matter before Parliament for future adjustments. That is a very wise move after today's performance, and the many statements that have been made without a knowledge of how the salary of the Public Service Commissioner is fixed.

Mr. Walsh: When Mr. Fraser retires you should appoint him as a welfare officer.

Mr. NICKLIN: It is a pity that Mr. Fraser is reaching the retiring age. I feel that he has still much capacity for work ahead of him, and judging by his record in the service he could dn a mighty job in the years to come.

Mr. Duggan: Can you indicate to me whether there was any determination by the Industrial Commission in excess of £175 in the recent adjustment?

Mr. NICKLIN: The Director-General of Health and Medical Services was granted £250. He was in the top bracket.

Mr. Duggan: That was granted by the Governor in Council.

Mr. NICKLIN: It was decided as a result of certain determinations by the Industrial Commission. The Deputy Director-General was the top officer whose salary was determined by the Commission. An increase of £175 was granted. Under secretaries got £175 and, if I remember rightly, there were a couple of grades between under secretaries and the Director-General.

I hope that I have been able to clear up some of the misapprehension in the minds of hon. members opposite in regard to the move for fixing the salary of the Public Service Commissioner. His salary is adjusted in accordance with the basic award made by the Industrial Commission.

I am pleased that hon. members opposite appreciate the proposed streamlining of the business of the State and the necessity for adjusting the method of salary payments to fit in with modern conditions and decimal currency.

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

FIRST READING


RAILWAYS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION


"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Railways Acts, 1914 to 1964 in a certain particular." ' Motion agreed to.

AUDIT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION


"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the· Audit Acts, 1874 to 1963, in a certain particular." Motion agreed to.




"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Audit Acts, 1874 to 1963, in a certain particular."

As the Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, not an officer of the Public Service, his salary has always been adjusted by Parliament. This amendment is in respect of the salary of the Auditor-General.

It is proposed that, in lieu of a salary of £4,950, a salary of £5,250, representin!l an increase of £300 per annum, shall be pmd to the Auditor-General as from 20 July, 1964. This proposal emanates from increases granted to officers of the Public Service consequent upon variation of the Public SeTvice Award as from that date.

Mr. Duggan: You say it is proposed to increase the salary to £5,250?

Mr. NICKLIN: Yes.

Mr. Duggan: How is it that in the Estimates of the Probable Ways and Means for the year ending 30 June, 1965, the sum of £5,262 was expended last year? What is the explanation for that?

Mr. NICKLIN: I cannot give that information off-hand.

Mr. Duggan: It is shown on page 2 that the appropriation for 1963-64 was £5,114, and the amount expended in 1963-64 was £5,262.

Mr. NICKLIN: There is a basic-wage adjustment, which amounts to only £39 per annum. I shall obtain that information.

Under present legislation, salaries of certain higher officials in the Crown Service may be increased from time to time by the Governor in Council but the salary of the Auditor-General, by reason of the nature of his high office and statutory provisions in respect of his status, may be increased only by Parliament itself.

The increases granted by the Governor in Council to officials not subject to the Public Service A ward has resulted in the salary of the Auditor-General being less than the

Audit Acts [24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2867

salaries of certain officials which it previously exceeded. A comparison made with the salaries of Auditors-General of other States shows that the salary of the Queensland Auditor-General has now fallen below that of his counterparts in South Australia and Western Australia. The proposed increase will restore this salary to near its rightful place in interstate comparisons. At the same time, it will correct present anomalies in ~omparison with salaries of other positions m the Queensland Crown Service.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (3.16 p.m.): I do not wish to have much say on this matter. I agree with the Premier that the office of Auditor-General should remain subject to the close scrutiny of Parliament and answerable only to it. I agree also that increases or re~uct!ons in the salary of the occupant of this high office should remain subject to legislative enactment.

I asked by interjection for an explanation concerning the proposed salary increase from £4,950 to £5,250. The Estimates show that the appropriation for 1963-64 was £5,114.

Mr. Nicklin: If I remember rightly there was an extra pay period in that year.

Mr. DUGGAN: That introduces a further complication. The amount expended during 1963-64 was £5,262, and the appropriation required for 1964-65 was £4,989, which is less than the amount appropriated for 1963-64. It is difficult to follow those figures. The requirement for 1964-65 is in excess of the salary. The only thing that I can think ?f is that it may have been due to some mcrement, although I do not think increments apply to this office. I do not know what the explanation is.

I wish to deal now with one or two observations made by the Premier. He becran in an easy-going and placid manner but' in replying during a previous debate this afternoon. he _seemed to become a little agitated. He Imphed that we on this side of the Chamber are salary-slashers who do not want to see justice done to the officers whose salaries are now being considered. I have m~de it quite clear that that is not our attitude at all. If provision was made to provide for the payment of maximum mcreases granted in award adjustments we would be satisfied. '

The Premier made a great play of the fact tha~ we do not know how these figures were arnved at; that they were based on award determinations by the Industrial Commission· and so on. I think everybody knows what happens in these matters. I ask the Premier to. confirm or deny whether, when the last adJustments were made for heads of departments, th;: maximum increase was £175. That was, I thmk for the Deputy Director-General of Health and Medical Services. It may have been for the Director-General of Health and Medical Services, who is not only an administrator but is possessed of certain special qualifications. He may, for that reason, have

received an amount greater than £175. If he did, it should have been by Order in Council instead of determination by the Industrial Commission.

Mr. Nicklin: Some scientists went up by £425.

Mr. DUGGAN: I am coming to that. It is true that there were in the lower scales adjustments higher than £175. These determinations were made because of the specialised knowledge required of the officers concerned, and to plug a gap, as it were, in the existing salary range. It cannot be argued that the responsibilities of either the Auditor-General or the Public Service Commissioner have substantially altered; they are the same now as they were last year. It may be, however, that, bearing in mind the skill required and the time taken to reach the necessary standard in some callings, the salary offered has not been sufficient to induce people to leave other forms of employment to join the Crown Service.

I think that is the reason why an increase of_ up to £425 was granted to certain scientists. Heads of departments were granted £175, and it is proposed now to increase the amount to £300 in the case of cer~ain officers. The Opposition does not believe that that is the correct thing to do. If the Premier can point out that the duties of the Auditor-General have changed or that the requirements of his office have changed, there might be substantial merit in the argument that the increase should be greater than £175. On the other hand, if he will indicate his willingness to agree to an increase of £17 5, there should not be any disagreement.

The Opposition draws attention to the difference between £175 and £300 and makes it a point of discussion because hon. members on this side of the Chamber believe that there is one method of evaluation used for these people and another for a great number of other people. I make it quite clear that the Auditor-General is an officer who requires special training and has special responsibilities, and one cannot equate his services with those of a railway engine-driver, a fitter, a carpenter or a plumber, of whom there are many thousands in the community. However, if a very careful examination were made of their services and their skills, there might well be some changes in the rate of salary prescribed for certain officers of the Crown.

I feel very strongly that some officers receiving high salaries in the Public Service are not as deserving as are other officers receiving lower salaries. It is true, of course, that the salary attaches to the position rather than to the individual. In some cases former officers of the Public Service are receiving about twice as much in private industry as they received under the Crown. I know that this is so in the case of the Commonwealth Public Service, where officers with particular

2868 Audit Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

skills have been induced to go into private industry. I was talking privately recently to an officer of the Public Service who retired. I shall not mention his name, because it was a private conversation, but he was a very highly paid officer. He is now doing parttime work in private industry and is receiving more for that part-time work than he was when he was employed by the Crown. This proves that people can earn higher salaries outside the Public Service.

The Opposition's argument is quite plain, and I do not intend to allow the issue to become clouded by talking about the responsibilities of a particular person. If it is the desire of the Government that we should evaluate the services of this man, we should do so calmly and dispassionately on another occasion instead of basing the increase that is to be granted to him on increases granted to members of the Public Service generally. We think that the Government should say why, in its opinion, the Public Service Commissioner, the Auditor-General, or some other officer whose work justifies the payment of a higher salary, should receive, say, £6,000.

The Government should take the Opposition into its confidence and let us determine what salaries should be paid to these officers. I want to make it abundantly clear that the increase given to these people should be £175, which was the greatest increase given to heads of departments by the Industrial Commission. I have set out the principles on which the Opposition bases its argument, and I again indicate that hon. members on this side of the Chamber intend to vote against the increase of £300 because of the circumstances associated with the presentation of the BilL

Hon. G. F. R. NICKUN (LandsboroughPremier) (3.24 p.m.), in reply: I still cannot understand the reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition in deciding to vote against what is a justifiable salary increase. The Auditor-General is a very important officer of the Public Service; he occupies a very important position in the State.

Mr. Bromley: We are not denying that.

Mr. NICKLIN: Hon. members opposite are denying him the proposed increase in salary by voting against it, and I cannot understand why. As I say, there are various classifications for top officers whose salaries are comparable. For example, the Commissioner for Main Roads, the Director-General of Education, the Director of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Director of Psychiatric Services are all in the one salary group. Similarly, the Public Service Commissioner and the Auditor-General are grouped in salary, as are many other officers in the top bracket of the Public Service in this State. That is the way it has always been and, I suggest, always will be unless

we adopt the principle put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that we should fix a specific salary for the specific post irrespective of its responsibilities compared with those of what might be termed other comparable public servants.

The Auditor-General's salary, as it is being fixed here, is by no means large compared with the salaries of Auditor-Generals in other States of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Walsh: It is just as well it is not based on the same formula as the salary of the town clerk.

Mr. NICKLIN: The hon. member might have something there. For example, I refer to figures prepared for the Bill under consideration; in Queensland the salary of the Auditor-General is set down at £4,989; in the Commonwealth it is £7,500; in New South Wales it is £7,500 plus £250 allowance, a total of £7,750.

Mr. Duggan: That is why there may be a case for fixing all these salaries separately.

Mr. NICKLIN: Yes, but hon. members opposite are even denying the Au<;Jitor-~ene:al the meagre rise we propose m this Bill. In Victoria the Auditor-General is paid £7,500; in South Australia £5,202, and in Western Australia £5,074.

In reply to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the amount shown in the Estimates, it is as I said it might be; it included one extra pay period. That was provided for on that occasion. As the hon. gentleman knows, very often there is a slight variation in the amount provided in the Estimates because of certain happenings from time to time.

The proposal contained in this Bill is a sensible one. It is to give the Auditor-General a salary comparable with the salaries of other top public servants in this ~tate. It is justified and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question-That the motion (Mr. Nicklin) be agreed to-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 34 Mr. Armstrong

, Bjelke-Petersen , Camm , Chinchen , Cory

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan ,, Harrison , Herbert

Hewitt , Hiiey , Hodges , Ho~1per , Hughes , Jones, V. E. " Knox .. Lee , Lickiss

Mr. Low McKechnie Munro

, Murray Nicklin Pi! beam

, Pizzey Ramsden Richter Row Sullivan Tooth

, Wharton

Tellers: Mr. Anderson

, Honghton

Governor's Salary Acts [24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2869

Mr. Adair , Aikens , Baxter ,, Bennett

Brornley Byrne

, Coburn Davies Dean Dip lock

, Donald , Dufficy , Duggan

Graham , Hanlon , Hanson

Mr. Fletcher , Chalk , Carey

NoEs, 28

PAIRS

, Houston , Inch , Jones, R. , L!oyd

Newton , O'Donnell , Sherrington , Tucker , Wallis-Smith , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Melloy , Thackeray

Mr. Mann , Gunn , Marsden

Resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING


GOVERNOR'S SALARY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION


"That the House wiii, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Governor's Salary Acts, 1872 to 1964, in a certain particular." Motion agreed to.


(Mr. Campbell, Aspley, in the chair)


"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Governor's Salary Acts, 1872 to 1964, in a certain particular."

This measure proposes that, in lieu of a salary of £7,100 for His Excellency the Governor, there shall be paid a salary of £7,750, which is an increase of £650 per annum. This proposal follows a review of the salaries of the judiciary, concerning which proposals for increases were included in a Bill already submitted for the consideration of hon. members. The proposed salary for His Excellency maintains at an appropriate level the dominance of this salary over the judicial salaries.

In introducing this Bill, I pay a high tribute to His Excellency for the most distinguished services which he has rendered in his high office as representative of Her Majesty the Queen. Imbued with an immense faith in Queensland and a deep-seated love for the State and its people, he has been not only an inspiration to, but also a dynamic force in, the encouragement of the development of the State and the improvement of the welfare of its people.

More than any other Governor we have ever had in this State, he has travelled Queensland extensively, has mingled freely with people in all walks of life, thereby gaining first-hand information of the State's potential, its industrial performances, and the outlook and aspirations of its citizens.

I feel that nobody could do more in carrying out the duties of his office than has His Excellency the Governor. As a result of his wide travelling and his meeting so many people all over the State, he has earned the respect of people in all walks of life. We are also deeply appreciative and proud of the honour which has been shown to His Excellency in his appointment as Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth. We are certain that in this wider sphere of service His Excellency will display those attributes and render those services which have endeared him to all citizens and have been such a power for good in Queensland.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (3.40 p.m.): It is with a measure of regret that, on behalf of the Opposition, I have to address myself to this matter. Irrespective of who occupies this important position, I do not think that the office of Governor should necessarily, or indeed at all, be brought within the ambit of this party-political controversy. I should like to be able to give complete approval to all matters surrounding the office of Governor of the State. It is true that it is a very important office, as His Excellency represents Her Majesty the Queen in this State.

I endorse what the Premier said about the personal attributes of the Governor and Lady May, the work they have done, the very distinguished way in which Sir Henry has carried out the duties attaching to that office, and the extent to which he has physically, mentally, and possibly financially, expended himself in carrying out the duties of Governor of this State. I do not think that any previous Governor has travelled so extensively or has shown the same personal interest in the many facets of our State's activities. He is a very warm and interested listener, a keen inquirer amongst all ranks in society, and is a man for whom I and other members of the Opposition collectively have very high regard.

It is regrettable that because the Government has seen fit to bring the Governor's office into this matter we are obliged-not because of any desire on our part to strike any discordant note but because the Government has been prepared to accept the responsibility for lumping the Governor's salary with the salaries of these other people--to indicate, as a matter of principle and consistency, our opposition to this proposal. It is not to our liking or in accordance with our wishes that this adjustment should be done in this way at this time. Only an occupant of the office of Governor would have a proper understanding of the financial responsibilities that attach to that office. I should not be at all surprised if the Governor finds

2870 Govemor's Salary Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

himself substantially out of pocket at the end of the year, partly because he is such a good host. I have had invitations to be a guest of His Excellency at Government House and have been embarrassed at his hospitality. I have been the recipient of many gestures from him over the years. The Governor has been most generous in this regard.

Nevertheless, I feel that this matter should be moved away from the other somewhat controversial matters. lf the Government had come along three months ago, or three months hence, making no reference to Industrial Commission decisions and these other matters, I am sure that the Committee would have been prepared to look favourably at the financial obligations of the Governor.

The method chosen to make this adjustment indicates the haphazard way adopted in fixing the various amounts. It is proposed to increase the Governor's salary from £7 ,I 00 to £7,750, an increase of £650. The salary of the Chief Justice was increased from £7,000 to £7,500. Why this differential in increase when until now there has been a difference of only £100 between the salaries of the Governor and the Chief Justice? If the Government wanted to equate those salaries correctly, it could have given the Governor £500 and would still have maintained the dominance of the representative of the Crown over the Chief Justice.

I am not saying that, under normal circumstances, the increase for the Governor should not be more than £500. All my argument is based on the fact that the Government is trying to convince us that these amounts of £250, £300, £500, or £600 are based on some scientific formula determined by the Industrial Commission. What I am saying explodes that theory, as comparable salaries have differing adjustments applied to them.

The Government says that there was no special desire to give some higher figure to the Auditor-General and that his increase was determined in accordance with decisions of the Industrial Commission. There is no logic in that brand of reasoning when the figures do not support it. If the Government adhered to comparable increases for comparable salaries, there would at least be some element of consistency and logic in what is being done.

I am sure His Excellency will appreciate that what I am saying is in no sense to be regarded as an attack on him. I have a tremendously high regard for both him and Lady May, as have my colleagues. He is an ·exceeding able Governor, an exceedingly friendly one, and an exceedingly generous one. He is a man who has expended himself in all directions. I would much prefer to see his remuneration removed entirely from controversial matters that come before the Chamber. The salary of the Queen's representative should be kept quite remote from award adjustments. In future I suggest that this matter should be considered quite apart from other matters that may follow decisions of the Industrial Commission.

I have tried to make it quite clear that I think His Excellency will be heavily out of pocket personally in maintaining Goverr:ment House at the standard he has set. He IS the arbitrator of that standard. It is well known that Governors vary in the extent of their hospitality, the travel they undertake, and other things. The present Governor has been extremely generous and has perhaps contributed more from his own pocket to deserving causes than did many of his predecessors. The cost of representing the Crown should not be unduly borne from his own pocket. If one were able to engage him in confidential discussion, it is quite possible that it would be found that he is out of pocket to an extent far greater than the £650 now being granted.

It is therefore with regret that I have to announce, merely to be consiste~t in our attitude and not to give offence to Sir Henry, that it is the Opposition's intention to vote against the measure.

Mr. AIKENS: (Townsville South) p.48 p.m.): Unlike the Leader of th~? Opposition, I have had no regrets at any time for anything I have said, or any vote I have cast, m this Parliament. I came here prepared to vote according to my conscience and my conception of the fitness of things. Fo.r that reason, I intend to vote against the Bill.

In introducing the Bill, the Premier said that everyone in Queensland would pay a high tribute to His Excellency for the way in which he has carried out the many and varied functions attached to his high office. I agree with that statement. I also want to say, however, that any reputable and decent citizen in Queensland would say exactly the same about me, so that I meet His Excellency on common ground in that regard.

Mr. Walsh: I would like to know what size hat you wear.

Mr. AIKENS: Unlike the hon. member for Bundaberg, I do not suffer from the complaint known as el~phantiasis ?f the ego, for which the medical profession has no cure and which we in this Chamber must continue to endure.

There is some difference between this Bill and the Bills that have been introduced earlier to "jack up" the salaries of judges and various top-ranking public servants, because more than half of the increases in salary that this Assembly has begun to grant to those gentlemen will go to the Federal Commissioner of Taxation, whereas the Governor, being a representaive of the Crown, pays no tax and will receive the whole of the increase granted to him by Parliament. That is the important difference between this Bill and the Bills that were introduced earlier.

I join with the Leader of the Oppositi~n in saying that there is nothing personal m any remarks that I might make on the Bill. I believe that the Governor has done, and is doing, a good job; but that does not influence me in the least. I am attacking

Governor's Salary Acts [24 MARCH] Amendment Bill 2871

!he . proposed measure on the principle that IS mvolved and on the principle that is embodied in it.

During these debates-I cannot go back, of course-! expected the Premier to trot forth the corny old subterfuge and say that the Governor's percentage increase is no greater than the percentage increase of the basic-wage earner. I remind Ministers of the Crown, and anyone else who cares to put an ~rgument to me based on a percentage mcrease, that I am not the least bit interested in it. If the population of Brisbane increased by 10 per cent., for example, it would increase by about 60 000 people. But if Mary up in a gunyah in' the Norther_n Territory had a piccaninny, the populatiOn of her gunyah would increase by 100 per cent. On that basis, the Premier and the Ministers who have introduced this series of Bills yvould say that the percentage of aboriginies m the Northern Territory is increasing at a greater rate than the population of Brisbane is increasing, which of course would be bunkum. Let us get down to facts. We have seen announcements in the Press of this series of Bills "jacking up" the salaries of everyone from the Governor down to the Public Service Commissioner, and naturally the Press, playing its role of informant to the people, has said that it is believed the increases will be from £600 a year down to £300 a year, just at a flick of the fingers. In the same newspapers we have read that the Industrial Commission has granted a paltry, miserly or lousy increase of 15s. a week to railwaymen, 2s. 6d. a week to someone else, and £1 2s. 6d. a week to tradesmen.

I should say that this is playing right into the hands of the industrial trouble-makers about whom the Premier is so often concerned, or appears to be concerned. I should say that the industrial trouble-makers will have quite a lot of justification in the next couple of days for seizing on this remarkable attitude of the Government. They are dealing with people, particularly housewives, who are concerned with not only the money that is coming into the home but also the money that is going out of it, and it should be borne in mind that neither this Government no~ the Federal Government has taken any action to stop the ever-increasing inflationary spiral that is causing the price of commodities to increase every day.

:When people_ read in the newspapers that pnces are gomg up and up, apparently without any limit and without any slackening of speed, and at the same time read that the Governor, Judges, the Auditor-General, the Commissioner of Main Roads, the Commissioner for Railways and other highranking officials are to be shielded against this spiralling inflation by being given rises in salary of from £8 to £12 a week, whereas workers are being given only flimsy protection by increases varying from 2s. 6d. a week to £1 2s. 6d. a week, one can understand how the industrial trouble-makers

will stress these things, especially to the wives and children of the men who are receiving small increases.

The Premier cannot grumble if he himself, as he and his Ministers have done yesterday and today, makes a rod for the industrial trouble-makers to flog them with. When they are flogged, of course, they stand up in this Chamber and talk about red-raggers, militants, C.M.Cs, Communists. and what have you; but apparently they never face up to the fact that they themselves are creating most of the industrial trouble that is occurring in Queensland today. The Premier and his Ministers, and the Government, must face up to the fact that the blood is on their own heads and that they cannot blame anyone else for it.

Again speaking only from memory, which I am sure the hon. member for Bundaberg will agree is ·probably the most retentive piece of mechanism that has ever come into this Chamber--

Mr. Walsh: My only complaint is that you exaggerate so much.

Mr. AIKENS: I do not exaggerate. If the hon. member can point to one piece of exaggeration in the speeches I nave made, or in this one, I will be pleased to hear it.

I asked the Premier a question last year, or the year before, about what happens when the Chief Justice of Queensland relieves the Governor as Acting Governor, and to the best of my memory the Premier told us that the Chief Justice gets not only the Governor's salary but his own salary as Chief Justice as well. If my memory is at fault on that particular matter, I will be happy to be corrected by the Premier.

Mr. Bennett: Your memory is at fault most of the time.

Mr. AlKENS: My memory might be at fault sometimes but my mentality is never at fault, as unfortunately is the case with the hon. member for South Brisbane--and my conscience is never at fault.

Mr. Bennett: You haven't got a conscience.

Mr. AIKENS: I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition proposes to do, but I intend to divide the Committee on this measure.

Mr. Duggan: I have already indicated that we intend to do that.

Mr. AIKENS: If the hon. member is going to do it, that is all right. I thought he might have done what he did on the Supreme Court Bill, namely, speak vehemently against it and then run across and vote with his friends the Tories in support of it. I intend to make him very happy; I am going to vote on this side of the Committee with him. If he always voted with me he would vote on the side of the ordinary, common, or garden people.

There are no personalities in my attitude on this matter. I approach it purelY and simply from the viewpoint of principle and

2872 Governor's Salary Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

purely and simply from the viewpoint of a dinky-die representative of working-class people of Queensland.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.58 p.m.): If one wanted to approach this matter from the point of view of personal appreciation of the occupant of the office of Governor, one might vote in favour of the increase. However, I do not express any regrets for voting against this proposal as I did against the others. Following that statement, the Premier wiii understand the action I propose to take when the Leader of the Opposition calls "Divide".

I will not say that I do not agree with everything the Premier has said about His Excellency the Governor and his work in this State. I doubt if any person occupying a position of a public or private nature in this State has a wider knowledge of Queensland industry and its people-and when I refer to its people I mean going right down into the family life and the every-day welfare of the community. In my experience I have never known anyone else occupying the position of Governor who has gone out and made himself familiar, not only with the bright side of life in Queensland, its people and its industry, but with the difficult phases of community life. Last year I remember him trudging up and down cane farms near Bundaberg getting an intimate knowledge of the working of the cane-harvesting machines invented by the Toft brothers. It did not worry him at all to be amongst the burnt cane and all the dust and dirt. He took it all in the day's work. The pity of it is that we do not have more people in public life who are willing to try to follow the pattern set by His Excellency.

The Premier has mentioned the honour that will be conferred on Sir Henry and Lady May by the appointment of His Excellency as Administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia until another GovernorGeneral is appointed. I do not know whether there is anything in the Press kites that he might be appointed Governor-General. I hope he is not. I hope he remains in Queensland for his full term. He does a good job here. Certainly he is the State's best public relations officer, both here and elsewhere. Whenever he has left the State for a time he has been an outstanding ambassador for Queensland's interests.

The interesting part of this proposal, of course, is that the Governor-General's salary has remained unaltered at £10,000 since Federation. I understand that there is now a proposal to increase it. Apparently the Governor-Generals have been able to get along on that fixed salary, perhaps by making other arrangements.

Mr. Nicklin: Did you notice how the costs of Government House have gone up in Canberra?

Mr. WALSH: Harold Cox, or somebody else, has been making a survey in all the States recently.

The services rendered by the occupant of the office in Queensland justify the expenditure of every penny piece tha_t has. been spent in the carrying out of h1s duties as Governor and fulfilling his desire to tra:rel the State and make himself conversant With Queensland and its problems. I kno": of nobody better qualified than my good fnend the hon. member for Cook to tell the Co~mittee the difficult conditions under which the Governor and Lady May travelled when they went to the Cape York Peninsula.

He went to places where Cabinet Ministers would have refused to go because of the rough conditions. That did not mean a thing to the Governor. I saw him tire out quite a few people as he moved around conversing with people on cane farms and tobacco farms, and in suga! mills. He would break away from the officml party to talk to a man using welding apparatus and l~arn ~11 he could about it. I know the Premier Will agree that His fucellency has bec<?me ve_ry conversant with many Queensland mdustnes and he is certainly qualified to speak on Queensland and its people. I think we can take a great deal of notice of him when we are talking about the future development of the State.

All those things aside, His Excell:ncy is big enough to know that this is Parliament. When any members of this Parliame!lt seek to exercise their right as they thmk fit, there should be no complaint. That is what I am doing on this occasion.

Question-That the motion (Mr. Nic~lin) be agreed to-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 35 Mr. Anderson

Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen ,, Camm , Chinchen , Cory

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Harrison Herbert

, Hiley , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton , Hughes

Jones, V. E. , Knox

Lee

Mr. Lonergan Low McKechnie Munro Murray Nicklin Pilbeam Pizzey Ramsden Richter Row Sullivan Tooth Wharton

Tellers: Mr. Hewitt

, Lickiss

NoES, 27 Mr. Baxter

, Bennett , Bromley , Byrne

Davies Dean Diplock Donald

, Dufficy Duggan Graham Hanlon Hanson Houston Inch

PAIRS

Mr. Jones, R. Lioyd Melloy Newton O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker

" Wallis-Smith Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Adair , Aikens

Mr. Fletcher Mr. Mann , Chalk ~~~~den , Carey "

Resolved in the affirmative.

Aliens Bill [24 MARCH) Aliens Bill 2873


FIRST READING


SOIL CONSERVATION BILL

THIRD READING

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

ALIENS BILL




"That a Bill be introduced to empower aliens to take and deal with property and interests therein and to revise the statute law of Queensland so far as it relates to aliens."

I am confident that this important and far-reaching measure will be welcomed by all members of the Committee, and by the community outside, as progressive and humanitarian legislation entirely in keeping with modern liberal-minded thinking.

It is linked in principle with the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Affairs Act of 1965, introduced by my colleague the Minister for Education, which removes certain restrictions that discriminate against aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and enacts certain measures as a step towards their active assimilation and integration as equal and respected citizens of our community.

The Bill abolishes racial discriminatory provisions that exist in the following Queensland statutes-

The Banana Industry Preservation Act of 1921;

The Aliens Acts, 1867 to 1958; The Co-ordination of Rural Advances

and Agricultural Bank Acts, 1938 to 1951 (Section 25);

The Land Acts, 1962 to 1963 (Section 16);

The Mining Acts, 1898 to 1955 (Sections 15, 24, 30 and 37A);

The Miners' Homestead Leases Acts, 1913 to 1964 (Section 4);

The Petroleum Acts, 1923 to 1962 (Section 10);

The Sugar Cultivation Act of 1913; and The Workers' Accommodation Act of

1952. Before outlining the provisions of the Bill, I think it is necessary to explain that, with the exception of the Elections Act and the Aliens Act, the several discriminations in specific State legislation were made for the

purpose of preventing the int~usion . of individual aliens, especially the Chmese, mto particular fields of primary industry.

The object of the Aliens Act was to prevent aliens from acquiring property, particularly land that could be used adversely in the event of war. If this object was ever worth while, its value has long been spent.

The Bill will permit aliens to hold property in all respects as if they were Australian citizens. The common law allowed aliens to hold personal property but did not allow them to hold real property. The effect of this provision will be to put aliens on the same footing in respect of property as other members of the community.

The principle will apply to the several other Acts that I have mentioned, all of which discriminate against aliens. For example the Banana Industry Pre-servation Act of '1921 and the Sugar Cultivation Act of 1913 were passed originally to prevent the taking over of the banana industry and the sugar industry in all their phases by the oriental races.

So far as the Banana Industry Preservation Act is concerned, its scope is wide enough to include all races. The motivations for its enactment have long been absent, and its complete repe-al would not adversely affect the industry.

No other State in the Commonwealth restricts aliens from holding or transferring land or interests in land. Although it was universally cast, the 1912 Act was passed primarily to restrict Oriental people from leasing land greater in area than five acres. The present 1867 Act, however, permitted aliens to hold the fee simple in land of any area.

The fears held in 1912 of the swallowing up by Chinese of all good land in Queensland to the detriment of the white races have long since been dispelled. The repeal of this Act would accord more with the outlook of the present day than its retention.

The 1867 Act has been gradually whittled down until the only restriction extant is that concerning chattels real. Sections 5 to 14 of the 1867 Act have in fact become obsolete due to the passing of the Commonwealth Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 to 1960.

The other States of the Commonwealth provide, without exception, that an alien may hold real and personal property as if he were a natural-born subject of Her Majesty. Section 25 of the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and Agricultural Bank Acts, 1938 to 1951, provided that no alien could obtain an advance from the Agricultural Bank unless he could pass a dictation test. All advances made by the bank since 1 January 1960 have been made pursuant to the Agricultural Bank (Loans) Act of 1959, which contains no discriminatory provisions.

L_ __

2874 Aliens Bill [ASSEMBLY] Aliens Bill

Section 16 of the Land Acts, 1962 to 1963, requires an applicant for a lease who is an alien to obtain a permit from the Department of Justice pursuant to the Aliens Act. No permit will be required as from the passing of this Bill, and the restriction imposed by Section 16 will no longer apply.

The discriminatory provisions in the relevant sections of the Mining Acts, 1898 to 1955-Sections 15, 24, 30, and 37A-were originally enacted as a consequence of the Chinese "invasion" of the mineral fields-for example, the Palmer goldfield-in the latter part of the last century. They prevented any person who was descended from the Polynesian, African or Asian races from taking up mining leases. There were similar prohibitions in Section 4 of the Miners' Homestead Leases Acts, 1913 to 1964, and in Section 10 of the Petroleum Acts, 1923 to 1962.

In regard to the latter Acts, Section 10 sought to exclude from the class of persons entitled to take petroleum permits or leases those who had not passed a certain dictation test. However, Section lOA provides that a foreign company, even though it is formed of persons in this excluded class, is qualified to take such a permit or lease. The inconsistency of Section 10 with Section lOA is a further ground for the repeal of its discriminatory provisions.

Section 12 of the Workers' Accommodation Act of 1952 specifies that separate accommodation arrangements and separate meal arrangements must be provided for persons of Asiatic and Polynesian origin. Hon. members will readily acknowledge that this is legislation of a nature involving racial discrimination, and its repeal will unquestionably be in accordance with enlightened present-day social thought.

I might say in conclusion that the Bill is fully in accord with modern democratic thought and gives practical effect to the ideals of racial tolerance and understanding that will, I am sure, be shared by the community as a whole.

Mr. Walsh: Do the Asiatic countries extend the same rights to Australians?

Mr. NICKLIN: I am afraid they do not. Nevertheless, I commend to the favourable consideration of hon. members the provisions of the Bill that I have outlined.

Mr. BENNEIT (South Brisbane) (4.22 p.m.): The law relating to this matter is still in a state of flux, and I suppose that the Premier's statement that these people should not be at any disadvantage has a great deal of substance in it. It is true that under our existing laws-not only the laws relating to aliens but also other laws-they are at some disadvantage, and the question that the Premier has to answer is: to what extent will the discrimination be lifted in the case of people who are referred to in the Act as aliens?

Recently the Government introduced in this Chamber legislation that partly removes certain restrictions but does not give the people concerned full rights of citizenship. So when the Premier refers to "discrimination", he is probably using the term more in its legal sense than in an ordinary sense, because there will still be some discrimination against Asians and people such as aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

The distinction between nationals and aliens is one which is generally made by civilised nations for the purposes of determining the extent of the mutual obligations which exist between sovereign state and individual. This law no doubt followed the statute law in other States and in other places. The original Aliens Act, which was introduced in 1867, was designed to protect nationals at a time when the absence of barriers would have prejudiced the development of the country seriously.

Before aliens are granted full citizenship fights, we must be satisfied that there is a tie of allegiance under which they incur certain obligations in return for the privileges they obtain.

A further significance of the tie of nationality lies in the disabilities imposed on aliens. I prefer the word "disabilities" to "discrimination". I do not think the Legislature distinctly discriminates against aliens. By their protective legislation in the pastand I am not saying by any means that it should be maintained-they have imposed certairi disabilities on people of this nature. The alien has no legal rights. Aliens are all subject to the condition that they shall abide by the law, but they have no legal rights. An alien, when acquiring full citizenship rights, owes only temporary allegiance and loyalty to the country, so that naturally certain safeguards must be maintained.

The real law in relation to aliens is contained in the Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1948 to 1960, which, of course, is Commonwealth legislation. There is also other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Migration Act of 1948 and the Immigration Act, 1901 to 1949, all of which control the activities of aliens. When we, as a State Legislature, are dealing with their rights and privileges we have to eo-relate them, bearing the Commonwealth statutes in mind.

An alien is a person not a British subject, an Irish citizen, or a protected person under the Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1948 to 1960. That legislation was amended only recently, and I think it said that an alien could not hold property except with the written permission of the Minister of the day. However, in the legislation of December, 1958, that requirement was superseded by provisions relating to a Minister's permit, so that now under the Act every alien may take, acquire, hold, and dispose of any real property or any estate or interest in real property in all respects as if he were a British subject.

Aliens Bill [24 MARCH] Aliens Bill 2875

Nevertheless, there are certain discriminatory provisions which I think the Premier at one stage referred to as racial discrimination. We have different laws in the State Act for European or North American aliens and for Asiatic or African aliens. Our legislation says-

"Any alien being a native of a European or North American State and not being an alien enemy who shall attend before one or more justices of the peace in petty sessions assembled and take and subscribe the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty contained in the schedule to this Act annexed shall henceforth be a naturalised British subject within the meaning of the laws now in force and such justice or justices is or are hereby authorised and required to administer the said oath."

Whereas, in relation to Asiatic or African aliens, we say-

"No Asiatic or African alien shall be entitled to be naturalised as a British subject unless such alien shall be married and shall have resided in the colony for a period of three years: provided also that the wife of the said alien shall at the time of his being so naturalised reside within the colony."

I am not saying that that discrimination should not be maintained.

Mr. Aikens: Asians have been naturalised at naturalisation ceremonies lately.

Mr. BENNETT: True. As I say, our Act is superseded by the provisions in Commonwealth legislation and nearly everyone I know of, without exception, is naturalised under Commonwealth legislation.

Mr. Aikens: It seems to me that the only difference is that the Asian has to be here for 15 years while other aliens have to be here for only five years.

Mr. BENNEIT: I am not sure whether it is 15 or 21 years. In any case, I point that out. When the Premier used the term "discrimination" I do not think that he intended to use it in an insulting fashion, but to show that there is a differentiation in relation to the legal rights of various people who live in this State and wish to own and control land here. When we lift the disability-! prefer to refer to it as a "disability"-! think we remove a handicap from these people, whose presence here, in the main, is almost completely to the State's advantage. I suppose in many ways it could be said that they have more right to our territory than the people who are making the laws to cover them, or those who are responsible for the fact that the laws are being made.

As a spokesman for the Opposition I cannot see any reason to oppose the Bill. I feel that it is in keeping with modern thought, as the Premier has mentioned, and will lift the standard of living of those people. In order to lift their standard of living

we must give them, as far as possible, equal opportunity with those with whom we wish to equate them. If we give them that opportunity they will take greater pride in their own advancement. Those among them who take advantage of the provisions that will apply will be leaders in their community and will encourage the rest of them to lift their standards.

Whilst we are facing the task of improving their standards and giving them more opportunities this Bill no ~oubt is ?f importance, but perhaps there IS ?ther legislation that places them at a disadvantage in their community living with us. We could well consider amending all the legislation as it applies to them so far as it imposes a disability on them, so that we can, whilst in this modern train of thinking, give them standards and a status that we in theory and academic argument say they are entitled to have, but which in practice we do not in fact pursue in a practical way. Whilst we encourage them to lift their standards there is no necessity for us at this stage to deviate from the policy pursued in the main by Labour Governments over the years in bringing down protective legi~lation covering those who m1ght be competitors against our own workers and our own development. In effect, this legislation is dealing with those who should be termed "fellow workers" and whose rights have not been properly acknowledged as they themselves have endeavoured to advance them with modern thinking and hygienic living.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (4.33 p.m.): At present we have in Australia many people who have come here from other countries and who could rightly be classed as aliens. I am beginning to wonder whether or not with all the concessions that are being granted to these people, particularly the concessions embodied in this legislation, we are inciting them not to become naturalised Australians. Will they become naturalised if we keep saying to them, "There is no need to become a naturalised Australian because if you do and you are 20 years of age you will be liable for _military . call-up; you will also be liable for Jury serv1ce; you will have to put your name on the electoral roll; and you will have to vote whether you want to or not."? It appears to me that those are the only things left for a naturalised alien: firstly, be has a responsibility to .st;~e on a jury; secondly, he has a responSJbJIJty to enrol for voting purposes; and thirdly, he has a responsibility, if he happens to be in the particular age group, to serve in the military forces in a compulsory way.

I am beginning to wonder why we are giving all these concessions when we are told from time to time that we want these people in Australia, and we want them to become naturalised citizens. Why are we giving them concessions which, up to now, have been applicable only to naturalised citizens? With regard to the cry concerning


a White Australia, quite a lot of woollyheaded people go overseas and come back here to talk a lot of nonsense and write a lot of stupid things in the Press. So far as I can see, since the Menzies Government came to power in 1949 there has been no such thing as White Australia. If hon. members go, as I do, to naturalisation ceremonies in their own electorates, they will see that quite a number of Asians-Japanese, Chinese and Malaysians-are becoming naturalised citizens. The only difference between Asian a1iens and non-Asian aliens is that an Asian alien has to be 15 years in the country before he can apply for naturalisation while the non-Asian has to be here onl; five years. Of course, Asians come to Australia on what is known as a working permit, a student's permit, or some other permit which is extended from time to time until the 15 years' residence in Australia is complete. They then apply for naturalisation.

I would like the Premier to tell me what an alien will do after the passage of the Bill. Where is the incentive for him to become a naturalised Australian? These are the points that are agitating the minds of many people.

Although I have no colour prejudices, I say quite frankly and honestly that I should not like to see in Australia the colour problems and racial problems that exist in other countries. The only way we can prevent it is to retain in Australia a preponderance of European stock. On that block I stand quite inflexibly. I do not intend to get off it for anybody, whether they come to me with all the specious arguments of the do-gooders and the so-called Christians, or with the bluff, bluster and ballyhoo of the Communists. I want the Premier to tell us what difference there will be, after the passage of the Bill, so far as citizen rights are concerned, between an alien who is not naturalised and one who is.

. Mr. ~ ALSH (Bundaberg) (4.38 p.m.): In h1s opemng remarks the Premier said he thought the Bill would appeal to every member of the Assembly because of its humanitarian basis as it affected aborigines Torres Strait Islanders, and so on. That was a very good theme and I do not think that anyone, having regard to the previous legislation introduced by the Minister for Education, to which the Premier referred would have any great objection to it: However, as the Premier continued, he introduced into the arena proposals which could have a very far-reaching effect on the national life of this State-and Australia, too, for that matter.

Unfortunately the Premier did not give an outline of the extent of these amendments or compare them with the legislation in the other States, or the Commonwealth. I hope that we have not reached the stage where in Queensland, as a State of Australia, we are

opening the door for a large influx of aliens to come in and take over the assets of the State.

Mr. Aikens: For speculators.

Mr. W ALSH: I have in mind, for instance, as the hon. member for Townsville South said, speculators. It has already been conveyed to me that following the passage by the Government of legislation dealing with freeholding of certain Crown lands in this State, substantial sums of money are finding their way into this country for the purpose of taking control in those areas. These people are not so much concerned with whether it happens this year, next year, or even in five years' time; if they can get themselves deposited in the State and settled, and then gain control of such a valuable part of the assets of this country, for instance, in the pastoral industry, those who are engaged in this field of investment and speculation are looking ahead on the basis of 25, 50, or, for that matter, 100 years.

I do not know whether I am entitled to claim at this stage that that would be the nigger in the woodpile; either that, or the limitations and restrictions that have been imposed on the holding of certain types of mining leases. Here again there is an influx of Asiatic interests into Queensland and they are taking control; that is, if they are not doing it now in a sort of back-door manner by way of subterfuge or using an Australian name and presenting the money as Australian capital whereas in fact it is coming from a foreign, including Asiatic, source.

It is true, as the Premier said, that in 1912 and 1913, before there were any Labour Governments here, it was found necessary to introduce legislation which discriminated in the ownership particularly of sugar lands in North Queensland, because it was felt that if the Asiatic population came into that area there would be no hope for the future development of Queensland on the basis of a white-man development scheme .

The Premier could have said that there was another law introduced by the Ryan Labour Government dealing not only with Orientals but also with Indians. I understand that that piece of legislation had to be sent to the King for approval because, having an effect on another nation and on treaties that possibly were in existence, it was considered a matter not for the assent of the State Governor, but for Royal assent.

The way the Premier outlined the measure, the Bill looks simple on· the surface. The hon. member for South Brisbane and the hon. member for Townsville South raised many questions which should be considered carefully by every member on both sides of the Committee. This Bill affects the rights of Queensland people-and in them I include Australian people who may come from other States to reside in Queensland-who might find themselves opposed by very substantial

Aliens Bill [24 MARCH] Aliens Bill 2877

interests backed by finance from countries that do not consider our interests in these matters.

During the Premier's introductory remarks I interjected and asked if there was any evidence that Australian people could own land in those Asiatic countries. The Premier admitted frankly that he did not think there was any evidence that those countries were, in effect, able to give us reciprocity for what is extended to them by this legislation. If there is any basis for the suggestions that are flying round about vast sums of money that will be available for investment in Queensland real estate, I am serious when I say that the white population of Queensland need have some fear for the future.

I do not think the Government is being fair in introducing this Bill today in the middle of so much other legislation, as hon. members will not have time available to do the research necessary to go into the matter thoroughly. This is not the type of legislation that should be introduced today and passed next week. Its effects are too far-reaching. I know that during the administration of Labour Governments amendments were introduced concerning the rights of people described as aliens but who were friendly and whose skin was the same colour as ours. Very much depends on the definition of "alien". If it is to include Africans, Indians, Japanese, and everybody else, I am a little frightened of what might happen if this legislation is passed in the form in which it has been submitted today. It is quite impossible to debate it intelligently till we know the actual wording of the Bill. As the Premier outlined it, the discriminatory legislative enactments have to be removed because of their application to aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. That, of course, is an entirely different matter and something with which this State is empowered to deal of its own right. We accept aborigines as part of our community, and we cannot describe them as aliens any more than we can apply that description to Torres Strait Islanders.

Mr. Adair: They are Australians.

Mr. WALSH: As the hon. member for Cook quite rightly interjects, Torres Strait Islanders are Australians. The portion of the Bill dealing with this matter will be readily accepted by hon. members generally.

I am afraid, however, that the other proposals will need to be the subject of searching investigation. I hope that this Bill is not going to be treated by the Committee as a formal measure. I suggest that each hon. member get to work and carry out some research, because he owes it to the people who went from Australia in two World Wars to fight to protect the interests and assets of this country for the Australian people. It is our duty to see that they are not handed over to what can be regarded as colossal financial or industrial enemies. All our assets could be lost in this way.

Mr. Bromley: The Federal Government has been doing that for years.

Mr. WALSH: Whether that is so or not, we have no responsibilities there. But we do have a duty to see that we take no steps that will open the door to wholesale investment by Asiatics and the cornering of real estate, whether it be farming properties or other types of land. In the early history of Queensland these things may have been related to the White Australia policy, which is so frequently referred to these days by the theorists who want to abolish it and inflict on this country the problems facing America and England today following the opening of the doors to coloured peoples. We can see what is happening there.

Mr. Nicklin: As a State, we have no control over the admission of people into Australia.

Mr. W ALSH: I am only drawing a comparison. If we give Asiatics the right to come into this country and invest--

Mr. Nicklin: The State cannot do that.

Mr. WALSH: It cannot allow them to invest in this country?

Mr. Nicklin: You referred to the State allowing Asiatics to come into this country.

Mr. WALSH: Do not let us split straws about that.

Mr. Ni.cklin: That is not splitting straws.

Mr. WALSH: How much worse it would be if we had Asiatics controlling the State from outside Queensland! The Mitsuis and the rest of them are not fooling me with their huge investments of money here. They have planted their feet here and they have substantial investments here. They do not have to become naturalised; they do not care whether they have a vote or whether a franchise is extended to the slaves of the community in Queensland, as long as they are toiling for them and sending them the wealth that will enable them to establish industries in Asiatic countries.

I know very well that the Commonwealth Government has power to control the entry of Asiatics, but the hon. member for Townsville South has already made it clear that in recent years there has been a steady influx of these people into Australia. I suppose that is a reaction to much of the comment in the world today from theorists representing the United Nations and other bodies overseas. I can remember the time when Spencer-! forget his initials-was the English adviser to Japan, and the advice he gave was to make every Britisher pack up and get out of the country and take his capital with him. That was the attitude that was adopted years ago-I am speaking now of 50 years ago-and I do not know whether the position has changed.

L_


The Premier corrected me and said that the Commonwealth has control over immigration, which we all know. The only question I ask is this: how much worse will it be if these people adopt the policy of controlling Queensland and its industry from outside the State?

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (4.53 p.m.), in reply: The hon. member for South Brisbane approached this legislation in the correct way. He examined it objectively and pointed out the value that could come to the community as a result of the removal of certain discriminatory provisions.

The hon. member for Bundaberg, on the other hand, allowed his imagination to run riot and dealt with questions that have never been raised. When the hon. member sees the Bill, he will reali-se that it is set out in such a way that he will be able to check the provisions and examine it thoroughly, as l:le suggested it should be (I suggest it should be, too), and very quickly. The various Acts that are being amended are set out in the schedule, as are the extent of the amend-nents, and it will be very easy to check them.

The legislation is perfectly straightforward. It is intended to remove, as far as is possible, anything that may be termed discriminatory in existing legislation. I do not suggest that it deals with every possible discriminatory provision against aliens in this State, and I should like hon. members to let me know if there are any other discriminations that could be removed to make aliens good citizens in the community. The Bill reviews all the legislation in which aliens may be discriminated against.

Much of the discrimination and differentiation against aliens dates back to the early part of this century and the latter part of the last century-such things as dictation tests before a man can get a loan from the Agricultural Bank and restrictions of that nature. Those provisions were written into the legislation to deal with the influx of Chinese onto the mining fields in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this century-the discrimination against aliens, particularly Asiatics and Polynesians, going into the sugar industry, the banana industry, and so on. In addition to removing all those' discriminations we have put a provision into the Bill which allows aliens to hold and deal with property.

Mr. Bennett: Under Section 16 of the Land Act of 1962 you say that an alien cannot hold land unless he buys an estate in fee simple.

Mr. Walsh: Does that include Crown leases?

Mr. NICKLIN: That section is repealed. The hon. member for Bundaberg knows, as a former Minister for Lands, that the Minister has the right to decide whether or not a lease should be granted. The hon.

member exercised that discretion many times -and rightly so-when he was Minister for Lands.

This Bill allows an alien to hold property -in other words, to purchase a residence to live in or a small farm to work on. I do not think any hon. member would deny an alien that right, particularly as our laws provide that he has to live in Australia for five years before he can be naturalised. The best way to encourage a man to become naturalised is to make him happy in the country. Give him the opportunity to own a house of his own or a small piece of land. That will make him want to be a naturalised citizen of Australia. But if you debar him from these things he will be sorry he ever came to this country.

Mr. Walsh: These other countries will not allow Australian people to own land there,. so why should we allow their people to own land here?

Mr. NICKLIN: I do not see why, when we want people from other parts of the world to come to this country, we should enact discriminatory provisions against their becoming ordinary citizens of our State. Notwithstanding all these wild statements by the hon. member for Bundaberg, this Bill will not permit Asiatic aliens to come into Queensland. Their entry into this State is controlled by the Commonwealth Government.

The hon. member for Bundaberg asked if this Bill would put Queensland on the same basis as other States. It will. It does not grant any concessions in excess of those that already exist in other States in regard to the holding of land by aliens. At present, under existing legislation an alien can hold land in Queensland even though he is not a resident of this State. That is in our legislation at the present time.

This is a revision of Queensland legislation in an endeavour to take out the out-dated discriminatory provisions against aliens contained in Queensland Acts. I am sure that when hon. members see the Bill and check from the schedules the various Acts and the proposed amendments to those Acts they will agree entirely with its provisions. It will not be brought before Parliament again until towards the end of the session, which I hope will be some time next week. Hon. members will have ample opportunity to· examine the Bill in the meantime. When they do so they will see that it contains nothing more than I have outlined.

Motion (Mr. Nicklin) agreed to.


FIRST READING

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

The House adjourned at 5.2 p.m.

legislative assembly wednesday march - …valuations by valuer-general's department.-mr....

Documents