legislative assembly hansard 1963 - parliament.qld.gov.au · assume that the hon. member for...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1963

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Police Acts, &c., Bill [5 DECEMBER] Questions 1975

THURSDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 1963

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

QUESTIONS

COMPENSATION AND REVALUATION, NERANG RIVER PROPERTIES.-Mr. Lloyd for Mr. Duggan, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

(1) Is it correct that the Lands Department will only compensate those with actual riverfront property, who are to be affected by the proposed alteration to the course of the Nerang River with the construction of the proposed new bridge at Surfers Paradise?

(2) Does he not think that those landowners, who at present are separated from the present river bank solely by the width of the street, are also entitled to some compensation?

1976 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

(3) As many others will be adversely affected by the proposed deviation, will he order a revaluation of all the area affected by Departmental valuers or by officers of the Valuer-General?

Answers:-

( 1) "Although landholders adjoining tidal waters are not entitled in strict law to compensation for the loss of such frontage through reclamation, it has been ~ecided in this instance to pay compensatiOn on an ex gratia basis as a matter of natural justice."

.<2. and 3) "There is no provision in any ex1stmg law for other than the claiming of compel?sation under the resuming statute, for adjustment of valuations either up or down among blocks which are beneficially or adversely affected by the proposed resumption."

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, KELVIN GROVE RoAD.-:-Mr. Davies for Mr. Hanlon, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

In view of a recent fatality near the intersection of Victoria Street and Kelvin Grove Road, Kelvin Grove, will he have the traffic engineer again review the matter of pedestrian safety in crossing Kelvin Grove Road at this point in order to ascertain what steps might be taken for the greater safety of pedestrians?

Answer:-

"As all funds allocated to jobs situation will not the next year's consideration."

for works are already of higher priority this be reviewed again until programme is under

PARKING ARRANGEMENTS, LANG PARK.Mr. Hanlon, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

In view of the understandable resentment of motorists, ticketed for parking near the Rugby League Club, Lang Park, off Castlemaine Street, on the grounds that such area being a dedicated roadway within the Central Traffic Area is subject to the provisions of Part VIB of "The Traffic Acts, 1949 to 1962," will he review this section of the Act to ensure that the alleged purpose of the Central Traffic Area to encourage parking off-street is not thwarted by such technicalities, where cars so parked off-street are not hindering traffic flow?

Answer:-

"The whole Act is at present under review. I do not propose to deal with this section separately."

FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT AT OIL JNSTALLATIONS.-Mr. Lloyd, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Labour and Industry,-

(1 ) What powers are possessed by the Fire Brigades Board in relation to the precautions incorporated in the construction of oil refineries at Bu1wer Island and Fort Lytton?

(2) Has any request been made yet by the Fire Brigades Board in relation to this matter?

(3) If no powers are contained within the Fire Brigades Board, will he ensure that these powers will be provided for in the future?

Answers:-

( 1) "The Board has no powers in itself to compel the constructing authorities at these places to take any precautionary measures against fire. However, it can make recommendations to the Brisbane City Council in this respect, and the Council may require that these requirements be complied with under the Council's ordinances. I refer the Honourable Member to the Answer which I gave to the Honourable Member for Port Curtis on November 28, when he made enquiries of a similar nature and in which among other things I stated that the refineries are co-operating to the fullest extent in complying with the Board's requirements."

(2) "Yes." (3) "This matter is presently receiving

active consideration."

DIAMOND DRILL FOR TIN PROSPECTING, NoRTH QuEENSLAND.-Mr. Coburn for Mr. Adair, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

As the present record price for tin is causing a boom in tin mining in the Far North, will he consider granting for the use of miners a diamond drill for prospecting purposes?

Answer:-"Unfortunately the Department has no

spare drill available for this purpose. Furthermore, the use of a diamond drill requires the attention of skilled operators and competent geological superv!S!on. However, the matter of Departmental drilling in tin areas is at present being studied."

ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, MULLIGAN HIGHWAY.-Mr. Coburn for Mr. Adair, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

As Main Roads work is the main source of employment in Cooktown and district, what plans have the Main Roads Depart-

Disallowance of Questions [5 DECEMBER) Questions Without Notice 1977

ment in bm1d for road and bridge construction on the Mulligan main road up to June 30, 1964, and what is the approximate number of workers who will be kept in constant employment?

Answer:-''The Cook Shire has a large road pro

gramme amounting to £86,000 for main roads, plus £17,100 for ordinary main roads maintenance. Of these amounts £57,000 and £6,000 will be spent on what was known as the Mulligan Highway. The shire was also allocated £38,500 from Commonwealth Aid of which £16,560 was unexpended at November 30, 1963. Men employed on main roads work at present total forty-six and funds available should keep them in continuous employment. Commonwealth Aid funds still to be expended should provide employment for another twelve to fifteen."

DYSENTERY AND GASTRO-ENTERITIS IN NORTHERN ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENTS.-Mr. Bromley, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

In view of the very prevalent allegations that serious outbreaks of dysentery and gastro-enteritis have occurred in Northern Missions and Government Aboriginal settlements, including Bamaga,-

( 1) Have these allegations any foundation and, if so, what was the number of victims of both diseases and what missions and settlements were affected?

(2) Is the utmost remedial action being taken by the Native Affairs Department to stamp out the outbreak and to raise the standard of hygiene with the view to preventing further outbreaks? . (3) Will he seriously consider appointmg an all party committee to visit these missions and settlements as soon as possible?

Answers:-

( 1) "It is almost twelve months since the last outbreak of dysentery and gastroenteritis in Northern Missions and Government Aboriginal settlements. At that time two deaths occurred at Bamaga, three at Lockhart and two at Palm Island. There have been no deaths from these causes since January of 1963."

(2) "Yes."

(3) "Yes. Favourable consideration will be given to this request."

DISALLOWANCE OF QUESTIONS

Mr. MANN (Brisbane): This morning I was notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms that the questions of which I gave notice yesterday had been disallowed and were not put on the business sheet because the matters they dealt with were sub judice. I feel that the question directed to the Minister for

Labour and Industry should not be classed as sub judice. My understanding of parliamentary procedure is that before a matter can be held to be sub judice it must prevent a man's having a fair trial or fair hearing at a court. I should like to ask whether the question, if altered, can now be asked without notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: To whom is it directed?

Mr. MANN: The Minister for Labour and Industry, who rs in charge of the Police Department.

Mr. SPEAKER: Looking at the question, there seems to be some doubt whether the matter dealt with is sub judice. I feel that, in the best interests, it should not be asked.

Mr. MANN: Very well.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

EMPLOYMENT OF MR. V. C. GAIR.Mr. Mann, without notice, asked the Minister for Industrial Development,-

(!) Is Mr. V. C. Gair employed in the Minister's Department?

(2) In what capacity is he employed and what salary does he receive?

(3) Does he have to comply with the hours of employment laid down for all public servants?

(4) Is Mr. Gair permitted to leave his office at any time of the day? If so, does he have to get permission to do so?

Answer:-(1) "Yes. (2) "Mr Gair is employed as an Inter

viewing Officer at a salary of £2,500 per annum. In addition to conducting interviews, Mr. Gair is also required to perform other general activities associated with the conduct of the affairs of the Department of Industrial Development.

(3) "Yes.

(4) "Mr. Gair's duties are such that he is necessarily required, at times, to be absent from his office. The activities of all officers of my department, including Mr. Gair, are subject to the overall supervision of the permanent head."

ALLEGED INSULT TO MEMBER.-Mr. Mann, without notice, asked the Premier,-

Wiii the Premier deal with certain persons who recently insulted an honourable member of this Assembly under Section 45 of the Constitution Acts, which reads in part-

'The assaulting obstructing or insulting any member in his coming to or going from the House or on account of his behaviour in Parliament or endeavouring to compel any member by force insult or menace to declare himself in favour of or against any

1978 Personal Explanation [ASSEMBLY] Rural Fires Acts, &c., Bill

proposition or matter depending expected to be brought before House."?

or the

Will the Premier take this action to protect the rights and privileges of all members of this Assembly?

Answer:-"It is passing strange that the particular

hon. member who would appear to be involved has not complained to Mr. Speaker of the incident to which this question refers, that is, of course, if the incident happened as the question implies.

"I am, of course, most reluctant to assume that the hon. member for Brisbane would ask this question from any motive except as an exemplar of the proprieties to be observed by and towards a member of this House."

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table:-

Orders in Council under-The Grammar Schools Acts, 1860 to

1962. The Harbours Acts, 1955 to 1962. The Fisheries Acts, 1957 to 1962. The Primary Producers' Organisation

and Marketing Acts, 1926 to 1962. The Medical Acts, 1939 to 1963. The Forestry Act of 1959. The Lessees' Relief Acts, 1931 to 1932. The Purchasers of Homes Relief Acts,

1930 to 1932. The Mortgagors and Other Persons

Relief Acts, 1931 to 1943. The Financial Emergency Act of 1931. The Liquor Acts, 1912 to 1961. The Supreme Court Act of 1921.

Regulation under The Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act of 1962.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. HANLON (Baroona) (11.12 a.m.), by leave: I thank the House for granting me leave to make a personal explanation.

My attention has been drawn to the front page of this morning's "Courier-Mail," on which appears reported questions of Mr. L. Draney and answers thereto from Mr. D. Young at yesterday's sitting of the Police Royal Commission.

I shall quote only the relevant section of the report, which reads-

"Mr. Draney: Are you a member of the A.L.P.?-I am.

What branch? Is it Mr. Hanlon's?Yes, Baroona branch. It is No. 1 branch.

You have appeared on the platform with Mr. Hanlon?-No.

The Royal Commissioner (Mr. Justice Gibbs) asked what was the relevance of this line of questioning.

Mr. Draney said his next question would show the relevance.

Mr. Draney: Was the writing of this letter to Mr. Duggan done for a political motive?-No."

Mr. Speaker, I have sought leave to make a personal explanation because I f.eel there could be an inference in those questiOns that, as a member of this Parliament, I conspired with Mr. Young in this matter for political purposes. Accordingly, I wish to take this immediate opportunity to refute absolutely any such inference.

The fact of the matter is that on the morning following a statement in this House by the Minister for Labour and Industry regarding certain aspects of police administration I received at my home a phone call from Mr. Young, who alleged that, as a former employee· of the National Hotel. he could substantiate certain of the allegations that had been made with regard to activities at that hotel.

Although Mr. Young was known to me as a member of one of the A.LP. branches in my electorate, though not the actual branch of which I personally am a member, I want to state categorically that I treated his approach to me in this matter as an approach from a constituent, without regard to Mr. Young's personal political affiliations.

I told Mr. Young that the allegations were of such a nature that I should refer them to the Leader of the Opposition. As soon as I reached Parliament House I reported the phone call to Mr. Duggan and suggested that he should see Young and hear his allegations with a view to ascertaining whether any further action was warranted. Mr. Duggan agreed, and later Mr. Young repeated his allegations to Mr. Duggan in my presence.

Mr. Duggan requested Young to submit the allegations in writing. He did so, and, as you know, Mr. Duggan then submitted them to the Premier, who took what action he considered appropriate.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that my only motive in the matter was to have such serious allegations properly investigated. Had I wished, I could have retailed these allegations in Parliament without revealing their source.

RURAL FIRES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (CunninghamMinister for Lands): 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 Rural Fires Acts, 1946 to 1958, in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

Police Acts [5 DECEMBER] Amendment Bill 1979

AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

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

DAIRY PRODUCE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

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

LABOUR AND INDUS:TRY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

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

POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE

Debate resumed from 4 December (see p. 1975) on Mr. Dewar's motion-

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

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (11.18 a.m.): When the _debate was. adjourned yesterday I was referrmg to certam aspects of the hearing of police appeals. Since then I have had an opportunity of reading th~ Minister's speech on the initiation of the measure and after having_ s~udied it carefully, I am amazed that the Mm1ster should treat such a vital principle so casually.

I do not know on what basis Cabinet decided that this principle should be written into the law, but there are certainly many phases of it that I think should be argued an~ _iustifi_ed by the Government, through the Mm1ster, m this House. The Minister pointed out that at present the Act provides for appeals against promotion to be held in open court. He went on to say that that being the case, the evidence that wa; submitted before the court became public; in other words, the Press or anybody else could use the information that was presented to the appeal board by any of the parties. Now because the Minister and the Government feel that certain members of the branch known as the special branch-in other words the security service-see fit to exercise thei; right of appeal, a new principle is being introduced whereby, on the say-so of the Commissioner of Police-do not forget-according to the Minister, he shall, through the appropriate channels, seek approval of the Governor in Council of a direction that the particular evidence be heard in private. It is from there that this matter no longer becomes available to the public. I do not know that there is anything in the Bill to indicate the nature of the subjects that shall be withheld from the Press and the public. That is important because, after all, we have seen

instances where judges have complained about this method of treating appeals on a certain basis. No doubt the Minister will recall this heading when I show it to him. This newspaper article states-

"Police and Courts in Upheaval

The Queensland Police Force-and the entire administration of justice in Queensland-have been thrown into turmoil by Mr. Justice Philp of the Supreme Court. In a sensational blast against police methods Sir Roslyn said last week, 'Your liberty and my liberty are in jeopardy'."

I am not going to read any more of that article, which could be relevant, but I make the point that that warning having been given, followed more recently by the statement of the Full Court wherein it indicated that certain evidence had been withheld from a lower court and that a fraud had been committed on the court, I consider this matter very seriously. It is no good talking about having a security service that is not subject to political control if the Government itself is going to provide ways and means of opening up the gateway for information contained on files of members of the special branch to be presented to the appeal board. I should feel much safer if, instead of the Commissioner of Police submitting his views as to whether certain evidence should be heard in private, the magistrate on the appeal board was allowed to make such a determination. I think that the public generally would feel much safer if a judge of the Supreme Court were to determine whether the evidence to be submitted should be withheld from the public in the interests of the security of the country.

This appears to me to be a clumsy way of going about the matter of submitting the rights of any individual member of the special branch. It also poses the question: by whom are the officers of the special branch or security service employed? Are they employed by the Commonwealth Government? If they are, why would not the Commonwealth Government have some say on the nature of the matter regarding a particular officer's work that had to be taken from security files and submitted before a body of men-I emphasise "a body of men," not an individual-for perusal in order to determine whether he is entitled, say, to proceed with the appeal and have it upheld or rejected, as the case may be?

I have already emphasised the importance of this matter, but I am afraid that the Government has treated it very casually. If the Premier cares to have a look at it now he will see that the gate is wide open for a charge that there is a political Gestapo in this matter. It is all very well for the Premier to wipe my statement off in the way he is, but I regard this matter very seriously. I do not thinlc that at any stage the security papers should be handed on to any person other than to the Commissioner of Police. I do not think that they should become the property of even the Premier of the State.

1980 Police Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

If they related to matters that deal with the security of the country it would then be a Commonwealth matter. If these State branch officers are engaged in a particular class of activity that has nothing to do with national security I will take back what I said. After 20-odd years of the operation of the security service in this State we are being told aJ this juncture that it is necessary for them, in order to justify their career or positions by way of promotion, to submit evidence from the security files. After all, if any detective goes before a court and claimsas was claimed at one particular time that will be well remembered-that he has made a certain number of arrests, the purpose is to justify his submitting that he is a better man than those appealing against him. In outlining their cases detectives have said that they have arrested 25 people who have committed murders, or a dozen who have committed arson, and so on, but they have not gone into all the details of the cases.

Mr. Speaker, I know it must be difficult for you to hear me. I am trying to keep my voice above the noise of the hon. member for Merthyr but he still persists in cackling.

I take the view that I can speak again on the clause in the Committee stage. I am prepared to hear something from the Minister that will have the effect of more or less driving away the fears in the minds of many people that security will be handled on a particular basis by the Commissioner of Police in the first place, and then, when he has submitted his recommendation to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council will be the determining body. I do not think that is good for the State of Queensland.

Mr. KNOX (Nundah) (11.28 a.m.): I did not intend to speak again on this matter, but yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to my earlier submissions and, in doing so, made certain comments that I think I should answer on this occasion. I agree generally with his view on this matter concerning the State branch of the security service. I accepted the explanation given by him in the course of my speech. The attack I made on him was not a personal attack upon him; it was an attack upon his party's attitude to this matter. I realise that he, as the leader of his party, had to take a certain stand. In the course of my speech I pointed out that the Labour Party's Federal body had made a decision about the security service, and I have subsequently discovered that the State body has also made a decision on it.

Mr. Holllston: That is wrong, and you know it.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. KNOX: Opposition members are embarrassed by the decision made by their executive. They would know the decision just as well as I do.

An Opposition Member interjected.

Mr. KNOX: Possibly the hon. member would know it better than I do; possibly he would know more about it than I do.

I will tell the House what I know, and what is public knowledge. I do not intend to make any further references other than to quote from the actual documents. I compliment the Leader of the Opposition on his stand in this matter because I believe that, when he was a Minister of the Crown and indeed Deputy Premier of the State, he felt it his duty to see that the special branch was protected. Indeed, it was the policy of his party at the time that the special branch should be protected because, as I said in my earlier speech, it was the creation of the Labour Party in this country.

Now that the Leader of the Opposition has challenged me to produce evidence on the subject, I have searched the "Hansards" of the Commonwealth Parliament and I have also searched, in other places, the records of A.L.P. decisions at conferences.

Mr. Davies: Where would you do thatin the "News Weekly"?

Mr. KNOX: I do not need to go to any other paper or to any commentator for this information. It is recorded in public documents. We have only to go back to the Commonwealth "Hansard" of 7 September. 1960, page 895, to read that the former member for East Sydney, the late Mr. Ward, made this statement-

"Pressure was exerted from overseas and the action was forced on the Labour government of the day. But Labour recognized the dangers and took the precaution of putting the organization"-referring to the security services-"under the control of a judge, a civil authority. Since this Government has been in office, the control of the organization has been changed and it has now become a semi-military body. It has developed into a secret political police force and it is a real threat to the democratic way of life that we have enjoyed."

l\1r. Davies: You have to quote a man who is dead.

Mr. KNOX: I take this to be the official Labour view at that time.

Mr. Houston: Why would it be?

Mr. KNOX: We are at liberty to quote from the official records of "Hansard," whether the person is alive or dead.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I feel that the hon. member for Nundah is only prosecuting an argument that arose in this House. Yesterday I gave the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude to enable him to answer the charges made by the hon. member for Nundah. However, the hon. member


for Nundah. in pursuing this argument now, is only prosecuting a quarrel, and I cannot permit it.

Mr. KNOX: I bow to your advice in this matter, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to prosecute any personal argument with any member in the House; but I am in duty bound to defend myself from the attack that was made on me by the Leader of the OppO'Sition yesterday, and he asked me to produce in this Chamber documentary evidence of the statements that I had previously made.

Mr. Mann: You are defying Mr. Speaker now?

Mr. KNOX: I should not dream of defying Mr. Speaker. I am simply explaining to the House that I am under an obligation-it is my duty-to produce this evidence as the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to produce it.

Mr. Davies: You haven't produced any yet.

Mr. KNOX: You have not allowed me to continue.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I am finding it most difficult to tie up the argument of the hon. member with the Bill before the House. The debate does not take in any extraneous matters. I have allowed enough latitude to cover the subject of the argument between the hon. member for Nundah and the Leader of the Opposition. I think it has now gone far enough.

Mr. KNOX: Mr. Speaker, I will continue by saying that the views expressed by the Opposition in thi'S debate so far are somewhat strange. We have already heard the hon. member for Brisbane say that the security service should be abolished and with it, of course, should go the special branch, which is created in this State and which is in existence in every other State. And the purpose of this legislation is to allow members of the special branch--

Mr. Houston: It doesn't say that.

Mr. KNOX: The hon. member has not yet heard what I have to 'Say. The purpose of the legislation is to allow members of the special branch an opportunity to protect their pro~essional welfare in the Police Force by lettmg them speak of the detail in which they have carried out their duties. It would be imJ?ossible. for them to make legitimate claims agamst appellants, or, if they are apellants, to state their own cases sufficiently without revealing in detail information concerning procedures that they had adopted in the course of their duties.

The Opposition has made it quite clear during this debate, in the expressions used by the hon. member for Brisbane, that it believes that this force should be abolished. This is a very good reason indeed why

64

appeals concerning members of the Police Force engaged on this special work should be heard in camera.

We may be further concerned in this matter because recently the A.L.P. made a decision concerning the special branch of the Police Force in this State. At a conference of the A.L.P. held earlier this year, it was proposed by the Belmont-TingalpaGumdale Branch-

"That the A.L.P., when returned to the Government benches in the State Parliament, immediately abolish the 'State Subversive Squad' and all forms of secret service and security service."

That motion went to the Q.C.E. because there was not time for it to be debated at the convention, and the ultimate decision made by the Q.C.E., which explains the attitude of the Opposition in this debate, was-

"That the A.L.P., when returned to the Government benches in the State Parliament, investigate the operations of the 'State Subversive Squad' and all forms of secret service and security service."

That is a very good reason why these members of the Police Force should be protected from the pressures that an A.L.P. Government would bring to bear.

I support this measure because I know that the professional welfare of officers of the Police Force could be placed in jeopardy if they were denied access to appeal boards the proceedings of which were held in camera.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (11.38 a.m.): I do not wish to prosecute any argument that may have been started by the hon. member for Nundah, nor do I wish to place myself in the humiliating position of having to reply to statements made by someone who is obviously endeavouring to promote political propaganda through the forum of this House. An unfortunate feature of parliamentary life at present is that we cannot consider the principles of legislation that has been introduced without being subjected to the sort of thing that has just happened through the mouth of the hon. member for Nundah. There is nothing in this legislation concerning the security service of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Police Force. There is no mention in the Bill of that special compartment that has been referred to in the debate.

Mr. Walsh: By the Minister.

Mr. LLOYD: By the Minister, exactly. We do not suggest for a moment that certain events may not occur that concern the security of this State or the nation and that make it necessary for a security service to operate, but we do oppose any suggestion that on other matters the Government should have power to withhold from the people something that is in the public interest.


In other words, for political reasons, not for security reasons, the Government will have power under the Bill to withhold any information that may be given in evidence before a police appeal board. We are not concerned about anything that the Minister might say, or about anything that the hon. member for Nundah said when he dug right down to the bottom of the barrel. He is a political hatchet man. I regret that we have hon. members in this House who attempt to mislead the public by quoting from so_mething that may have taken place at an A.L.P. conference, something that we do not know about but which an hon. member invents in his own mind. I regret that this Parliament should be made a forum for dirt.

Mr. Dewar: When you say you are not concerned about anything that the Minister might say, will you explain what you mean by that?

Mr. LLOYD: Apparently, the question of a security service at the Criminal Investigation Branch was raised only because the Minister raised it himself.

Mr. Dewar: The whole design of the Bill involves men in the special service.

Mr. LLOYD: The objection that we have to the provision is that it gives wide powers to this Government, or any other Government-the Minister may not be the Minister in future; he probably will not be-to determine that any matter coming before a police appeal board shall be withheld from the public. I am not casting any reflection on the present Minister; but at some time in the future a Minister, or a Government, may, by the simple process of implementing the law contained in this Bill, withhold from the public something of public interest. If it is required in the interests of security, why not say so in the Bill? Why leave it wide open for the Governor in Council to declare that any appeal may be held in camera? That is the principle to which we object.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (11.42 a.m.): I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made it abundantly clear that there is one part of the Bill that we oppose strongly. As do many Bills brought before the Assembly by this Government, it contains more than one principle, and we are quite happy about all but the one to which I have referred. The others give assistance to those who need it.

In reading Clause 3, even after listening to the explanation given by the Minister in replying to earlier criticism, and to the speeches of other Government members, I fail to see why, if the provision is designed purely to protect the security of the State, the Bill does not state quite clearly that an appeal involving security will be held in camera, or that where a member of the special branch is either appealing or being

appealed against, the particular case sh~ll be dealt with in camera. In fact, the Bill lays down that any and every appeal may be held in camera. Let us see what will happen in fact.

Mr. Nicklin: What do you mean by "any and every appeal"?

Mr. HOUSTON: I am not being personal. The Bill states that every appeal may be held in camera if the Governor in Council so decides. It could be any appeal. It could be an appeal by an ordinary traffic policeman against another traffic policeman. There is nothing in the Bill to the effect that it must be a case of a particular type.

Let us look at the types of cases that can come before the Appeal Board and in which the security of the State and the country is in jeopardy. The hon. member for Nundah would know better than anyone else, because he is a champion Red-baiter, that the legal representatives of the appellant or :;ppointee may be members of a political organisation opposed to this country. We know from past experience that certain prominent members of the legal profession, who can be engaged to defend a particular policeman or to present his case for him, could be quite a security risk from the political point of view; yet there is nothing in the Bill to state that such a person cannot represent an appellant. When we consider that this legislation will still allow so many people to hear these matters concerning security, it makes us wonder if the Minister is sincere in the reasons he has advanced or whether he has gone far enough in tightening up all possible avenues of leakage in security matters.

From my own investigations of police appeals, I cannot imagine that any policeman would be asked such a question as would require him to give details of his investigations necessitating his telling the world, or anyone for that matter, something that he had discovered relating to the welfare of this country in carrying out his duty as a police officer. How could such information prove whether a man was an efficient officer and should receive promotion? Would it not suffice to say that in a particular case which need not be named, the particular officer was able to arrive at a solution in three months? Would it not be sufficient to say that subversive activities were being carried on in a particular part of Queensland, that this officer went to that place and that within three months he was able to ascertain whether such-and-such a person was a security risk? Surely he would not have to say, "I interviewed so-and-so and he told me such-and-such."

Surely the Minister is not going to say that those are the types of questions that will be asked of an officer. If the Minister is going to say that, then we must stop certain people associated with police appeals from leaving them and using what they have heard for other purposes. If that is the

Police Acts [5 DECEMBER} Amendment Bill 1983

case, we may have another look at the question. But I believe the main object of the legislation has nothing to do with security. I believe that its purpose is that when a case is heard in camera, all those involved in itthe magistrate, the union representatives and the barristers--are placed in the position that if they refer outside to what they have heard dunng the appeal they will be committing an offence.

The Minister said that the appellant's welfare would be protected because the secretary or president or an executive member of the Police Union would be a member of the board. If it was a closed hearing and there was thi~ declaration of a security risk, would the umon representative on the board be permitted to divulge to anyone outside what he has heard inside? If he is not able to divulge it, he is no protection to his union member. On the other hand, if he is permitted to divulge it, why all this talk about security? I leave the matter at that now. We will consider it further in the Committee stage. I have indicated that I think there are parts of the Bill with which we ar_e very happy,_ but we are not at all happy With thiS prOVISlOn.

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (11.49 a.m.), in reply: The Leader of the Opposition took, in my opinion, a very realistic view of this Bill, and stated that the Opposition would not be opposed to it. He made reservations on matters if the Government had certain intentions with regard to them. We stated our case, but from then on the debate deteriorated to the point where most of the comment had nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

The hon. member for Bundaberg cited a case. I have the file on that case before me· it is the one that the Leader of the Oppositio~ referred to. That hon. gentleman made his point very clearly in a few well-chosen words. Howev~r, the hon. member for Bundaberg beat his chest and played his u5ual role which everybody knows so well. I~ his typical fashion he cited the case of Const~ble Doneman, saying that he was charged with unlawful carnal knowledge. Right from the word "go" the hon. member was wrong· that officer was not charged with unlawful carnal knowledge. The Leader of the Opposition said that in the first place, and he. too, was wrong in that regard. That of!icer was charged departmentally in 1961 with a breach of the Police Acts in that at a certain time he was guilty of ~isconduct in indecently dealing with a woman. I do not intend to name the woman here.

Mr. Walsh: The watchhouse case.

Mr. DEWAR: Yes. He was dismissed from the .Police Force ~? 18 October. He appealed agamst the decision, and his appeal was upheld.

What is being written into the Act in respect of appeals that the Governor in Council considers fall into a certain category is

not new. I refer to Rule 84 (13), which came into existence on 6 April, 1939. By no stretch of the imagination could it be suggested that I was Minister in charge of police at that time. That rule states-

"The Minister may direct any such investigation to be conducted in an open and public manner. Unless such a direction is given no person not connected with the investigation shall be admitted."

So unless the Minister says that they will be in public any such investigations are conducted in private. That rule has been in the Police Rules since 1939.

Mr. Houston: That is not an appeal.

Mr. DEWAR: That is in respect of investi-gations. That attitude of mind in respect of certain things is not new.

The hon. member for Bundaberg showed his complete lack of knowledge of the whole situation because he did not even know whether the special police are under the control of the Commonwealth Government or the State Commissioner of Police. They are ordinary police officers under the control of the Commissioner of Police.

Mr. Walsh: You are misconstruing my statement.

Mr. DEWAR: No.

Mr. Walsh: I said, "Are they employed by the State or the Commonwealth?"

Mr. DEWAR: Exactly.

Mr. Walsh: You tell me now.

Mr. DEW AR: They are employed by the State. Now he knows. He was kind enough to tell me that he had read what I had to say at the introductory stage.

Mr. Walsh: I did penance.

Mr. DEW AR: The hon. member did some last week, too.

However, the hon. member was still not satisfied that we were doing something to our Act in Queensland that was tied up with what was being done in the other Australian States. Briefly, I should like to mention again the position in the other States. In New South Wales, in respect of promotions of members of the special branch, the Commissioner would direct that a request be made to the chairman for a hearing in camera. In Victoria there is no special provision covering appeals by personnel of the special branch. Normally the appeal of a member of the force is open although the chairman of the Police Service Board may direct that it shall be heard in camera. In South Australia all appeals are heard in camera. In Tasmania appeals are normally held in camera with no observers. I am just wondering how much out of step we are with this provision.


The second point in the few matters raised that had some relation to the measure related to the manner in which we intend to apply the provision. I indicated that in three years there had been three appeals involving members of the special branch, and that two of them were withdrawn. In three years there has been one appeal involving members of the special branch. At present there are six appeals pending that involve only two men, with one man in one case and the other in five cases.

I have made it absolutely clear that it is the Government's intention to apply this provision for holding appeals in camera only to cases in which members of the special squad are involved. Those concerned with the control of the Police Force will have to convince the Minister that the affairs of the State are in jeopardy because security information may be divulged in a particular appeal. The Minister will then have to convince his Cabinet colleagues that the affairs of the State are in jeopardy and Cabinet will then have to convince the Governor in Council similarly before the Governor in Council will order that any particular appeal shall be held in camera. If that is not sufficient protection for the people of the State, I have very little knowledge of the subject.

The Leader of the Opposition got off the track when he said that these appeals are loaded against an outside man. He said that often an apPeal goes against the outside man. It could well be that a member of the special branch was the outside person in an appeal. It could well be that a member of the special branch may desire to give evidence on his own behalf to support his case against the promotion of a man to a superior rank in a job in Mt. Isa or Cairns, so that he could be the outside person. If the argument of the Leader of the Opposition has any validity it could apply equally against a member of the special branch as in his favour. There is no basis whatever for such an argument.

There has been much beating of the air over this Bill; there has been a good deal of Press publicity-far beyond what I believe the subject merited. I say without equivocation that this Bill is designed to provide that an appeal will be held in camera only if the Governor in Council considers that the affairs of the State may be placed in jeopardy should the evidence of a person who is in the special branch of the Police Force be divulged. That is the only purpose of the Bill.

It may be argued that the Minister who presently holds the portfolio may have certain views and that another Minister, or Government, may not hold the same views. I have heard it held in our courts that comment by a Minister in this Legislature is binding in any interpretation of an Act. I have heard that argument upheld in court. I say without equivocation that the only

design in this measure is to allow the Governor in Council to direct that appeals involving members of the special branch may be held in camera. That is the whole purpose of the legislation.

Motion (Mr. Dewar) agreed to.

COMMITTEE

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

Clauses I and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3-Amendment of s. 57; Appeals

from the Commissioner; Appeal Board-

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (12.1 p.m.): I do not want to go over the whole story again, but I want to point out that the Minister went through a long rigmarole of procedure that is to be followed before the Governor in Council will finally say, "This appeal has to be held in camera," whereas in an earlier Bill the Deputy Leader of the Gove•rnment, Mr. Munro, made it abundantly clear that any member of Parliament who took notice of what a Minister said was a bit of a fool and that we should on no account think that, because a Minister said that something would be the order of the day, it would necessarily be so. He said that all we could rely on was the actual wording written into the Bill. So we are not prepared to accept the Minister's guarantee. I do not suggest that the Minister is not sincere in his belief that that is what would happen-! do not doubt his sincerity in any way and I should not like it to be thought that I did-but we know that, with this Government particularly, Ministers change from one department to another so readily. We even have two Ministers who will not sit on the same front bench together; that is how much they like one another. It is hardly likely that the Minister's guarantee will be worth anything, so we oppose the clause.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.2 p.m.): I listened to the Minister very intently after his earlier remarks on what he seeme·d to regard as confusion in the minds of those who have spoken against this clause. The Minister has the habit of getting up and chiding hon. members who attack from this side on what he regards as irrelevant matters that are allowed to enter into the debatethat is a matter for the Chair, anyhow-but I do not know that there is any greater offender than the Minister himself. He gets up here, when he is replying to the criticism from this side about the• suggestion that these appeals can be directed to be heard in camera and he quotes a rule that has been in existence since 1939. The rule has nothing to do with this Act, nor has the particular line of investigation--

Mr. Dewar: You say it has nothing to do with the Act?

Mr. W ALSH: The rule has nothing to do with this amending Bill.

Mr. Dewar: You said "this Act".


Mr. WALSH: Well, this Bill. Here again, the particular line of investigation does not even deal with appeals, the question that the Minister has referred to. I want him to understand now that, in any reference I made to what we could describe as the watchhouse case, without bringing the names into it, my objection was that, instead of having a police investigation into police misconduct, such a case should have ben determined by no other authority than the court itself. Just imagine an officer of the Police Force being charged with unlawful carnal knowledge and a police investigation deciding whether he is guilty or innocent! Why cannot the police be treated the same as every other citizen in the community? Far too much of that has been going on.

I might mention also that the same objection arises from the more recent case where appeals could be involved with this particular investigation. Surely he does not deny that the Full Court of Queensland, with certain evidence having been withheld-and evidence could be withheld from these appeal courts-publicly declared that a fraud had been committed. Again a deparmental investigation, not the ordinary channels of justice that apply to all other citizens, was going to decide whether that man should be dealt with. If any member of this Assembly committed fraud in his private life, he would not be investigated by the police to determine whether he should or should not appear before a court.

Mr. Dewar: You do not know whether or not that is going to be handled by departmental investigation. You would not have any knowledge of it.

Mr. W ALSH: I know, but if a Full Court comprising three judges made a public announcement, what investigation is wanted?

Mr. Dewar: You stated that it was going to be handled by the department. I say that you wouldn't know.

Mr. W AI.SH: All right. I know that the Minister appears to be at war with "The Courier-Mail" for some reason or other. If that newspaper wants to publish statements made by the Commissioner of Police, that is not my fault.

The subsection to be inserted states that the appeal board shall-

"(i) Investigate every appeal; (ii) Make its inquiry without regard to

legal forms and solemnities, and shall direct itself by the best evidence it can procure, or that is laid before it, whether or not the same is such evidence as would be required or admitted before a court of law;"

There is then the saving part of it which reads-

"(b) Save those expressed to be limited in their application to a judge of the Supreme Court, the provisions of 'The

Commissions of Inquiry Acts, 1950 to 1954,' shall apply for the purposes of every investigation of an appeal under this section."

In other words, appeal boards now are to be given powers as wide as those given to royal commissions appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, with the exception of those things that are, under that Act, particularly applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court. That is what the section states. I hope the Minister is not going to bring the Acts Interpretation Act in on that one.

Subsection (8) (c) (ii.) reads-"If, in a particular case, the Governor

in Council otherwise directs, then the Appeal Board constituted to hear that appeal shall exclude from the place of hearing of that appeal every person who, in the opinion of such Board, is not directly concerned in the investigation of that appeal:

Provided that in no case shall the appointee, appellant or a party to an appeal or the solicitor or counsel or, where there is no solicitor or counsel, the agent, duly appointed in writing, of any of such persons be excluded under the provisions of this paragraph."

Whereas previously there was what was supposed to be a policy of strict confidence on security matters, they are now to be thrown before a court consisting of a magistrate and two other persons. If each of the parties to the appeal has a barrister and a solicitor, together with others who assist them in the presentation of cases, information on security files will come to the knowledge of all those people.

Mr. Dewar: You are complaining now that it is not going to be secret.

Mr. W AI.SH: I know, and my complaint all along has been that documents connected with the security and welfare of the country are to be presented at any stage. That is my complaint. If the Minister did not understand that, I hope he does now. He made a very frank reply, for which I admire him. Whether it be right or wrong, he always says what he thinks. We have read that the security service of Great Britain is re-sponsible to the Prime Minister only, and I have always been under the impression that in Australia the only person with the right to control security is the Prime Minister. Now we have learnt from the Minister that the members of the special security branch are to be given the right under this Bill to prosecute appeals on the basis that they can come before the appeal board in a private way. We are told that this particular organisation is not a Commonwealth organisation, that it is appointed by the State and is subject to the State. I was a member of Governments from the time when security, as we know it today, was introduced in Australia, and even before that, and never


at any time did I have evidence that any of the mattel'8 that were delegated to the security service in this State for investigation were the property of the State and available to the Executive Council or to the Governor in Council.

The more I look at this clause, the more I think that we are getting nearer and nearer to a police State and the more suspicious I become. Let the Minister cite, under this clause, any work that would become the subject of a reference under the Acts Interpretation Act. Does he mean that the particular wording in a specific case will be governed by the Acts Interpretation Act? If the Minister can put up some argument on that point based on the advice that he might receive from his legal advisers, I should like to hear it.

As the clause reads, it would not matter whether it was a case similar to those that were dealt with some time ago, when police officers went before an appeal board and gave evidence and declared that the number of arrests should determine, in a large measure, whether the Commissioner appointed the appointee or the appellant to a position. We know what happened to that by the time legal men and others had kicked it around. The police administration was running for cover. I do not know, but I think that in the hidden thoughts of somebody connected with the police administration --not necessarily the Minister-those particular cases have something to do with the suggested provision.

Irrespective of what the hon. member for Nundah has said, how can it be argued that this legislation will give a right to members of the special branch? How can it be argued, when the security service has been operating for more than 20 years, that these men have been in any way at a disadvantage? If they have, because of their continuous employment in the security section, let the Minister produce evidence to show us that any one of the appellants from the special branch has been placed at a disadvantage because of a decision of a police appeal board. If the Minister could bring to our attention a few cases such as that, it would assist him to justify his contention. However, it would not satisfy me, because I oppose the clause on the ground that it throws the security of the country to the winds.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (12.14 p.m.): I should like to make one or two comments on this clause. The most important comment that I think should be made is that the security of Australia is controlled by Commonwealth authoritit"-S. We have the Commonwealth Security Service. of which there is a branch based in Queensland. A security branch was created at the Criminal Investigation Branch bv a Labour Government, but never at any time was it envisaged that the importance of that section would be such that it would involve the security of the nation.

When we consider the ramifications of police undertakings in Queensland, I do not think that any investigation would actually involve the security of Australia. Where the security of Australia is involved investigations woulii be controlled from Commonwealth headquarters through the Commonwealth Security Service. If we place on this special branch the importance that the Government apparently wishes, then let us affiliate it with the Commonwealth Security Service and have the Commonwealth Government pay the wages associated with it.

This section was created by a Labour Government in the interests of the State to advise the Government on certain matters. Those matters could involve security, but basically it is there to keep a record of the affiliations of certain people. We cannot persecute people; we cannot have a section like this become a secret service when we already have one controlled by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Tooth: What was the purpose behind the establishment by a State Labour Government of the special security branch in Queensland?

Mr. LLOYD: It is a special branch, not a security service.

Mr. Tooth: What was the object of it?

Mr. LLOYD: It is a special service and its value is recognised by the Government, but nothing justifies making it a secret service. The secret service is controlled by the Commonwealth Government and it has a branch in Queensland.

Mr. Dewar: No-one is arguing about that; they have nothing to do with this. You fellows have been beating the air and getting yourselves into a frenzy over this matter.

Mr. LLOYD: We have not been beating the air or getting into a frenzy. The Minister himself introduced this subject. He put it forward as a reason for the introduction of the Bill and we cannot accept this clause because it covers every possible appeal, even against the transfer of a man from Briscane to Birdsville. Such an appeal could be covered by the provision to which we object.

Now that this matter of the special branch has been raised by the Minister, we believe that, if it is a major reason for provision being made to hold appeals in camera, then it does not concern the national security of Australia at all, because that is handled by the Commonwealth Security Service. As I say, the Commonwealth Government has a security service with a branch in Queensland to deal with such matters. The duties of the special branch of the Criminal Investigation Branch in Queensland do not concern the security of Australia; they concern only the standing of certain individuals within the community. Let us face up to that fact.


The members of this branch investigate the background of certain individuals within the community and they keep a secret dossier. We must face up to that one, too. There is a secret dossier in relation to individuals, but they do no more than that; they are a documenting service, and any information obtained by them is readily available to the Commonwealth Security Service. We cannot extend the services of the State branch, because we already have within the Commonwealth of Australia a Commonwealth Security Service looking after the nation's security. Queensland, or any other State in the Commonwealth that might have a special branch, has a special branch not to investigate the security of Australia, but merely to report on individuals who might have some tendency towards creating insecurity in Australia.

Mr. Tooth: You mean it is to supplement the Commonwealth services?

Mr. LLOYD: That is all, and there is no reason why any appeal should be held in camera even though it does relate to a member of this service. I do believe that that could, or should, happen when this service merely constitutes a documenting subdepartment. I repeat, if the members of this branch form a security service, let us at least have the Commonwealth Government pay their salaries.

Mr. Tooth: It was created before the Commonwealth Security Service.

Mr. LWYD: It has been in operation quite a long time. I think the interjector really makes the whole argument relevant. It may have been created before the Commonwealth Security Service, but now that the Commonwealth Security Service has been created the special branch is simply a documentary branch.

Mr. Walsh interjected.

Mr. LWYD: There is a great deal of merit in having the Commonwealth Security Service. It is necessary for the security of the nation and is controlled solely by the Commonwealth Government, whereas the special branch is purely and simply a documenting branch. There is nothing in its activities that would give cause for any alarm. There is nothing about it that could cause danger to the security of this nation. All that the special branch has been doing has been to document individuals within this State, and retail the information it receives to the Commonwealth Security Service. Even on the basic reasoning that the Government has put forward for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill, I can see no reason why any appeals concerning officers of that branch should be held in camera. If it were required by the Government that this special branch be covered, why not include it in the legislation? Why not come out in the open and say, "We are creating a secret service within the Police Force."?

But no, the Government wishes to have power within itself to declare that any appeal against any promotion or transfer, or any matter which can be the subject of appeal to the Police Appeal Board, will be held in camera. We cannot agree to such a proposal.

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (12.22 p.m.): I have made it very clear that this provision has one purpose only. I do not intend to reply to what the hon. member for Bulimba may or may not think about my sincerity. For the first time, hon. members on that side are discussing the real matter covered by this Bill. It had to be brought out in an interjection by the hon. member for Ashgrove. The Bill deals only with the special police in Queensland, a branch that was set up by the previous Government in about 1937. There has been little, if any, addition to its strength since we became the Government. Most hon. members now understand something about the Bill, and that is fairly important when we are considering legislation. As an earnest of my sincerity in this matter, if hon. members will continue speaking I am having the Parliamentary Draftsman take a look at the clause to see whether it can be amended to ensure that it will refer specifically to special police. Unless hon. members keep the debate going, I may not be able to have it changed.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (12.24 p.m.): I do not think it is the object of the Opposition to keep on talking merely to enable the Minister to repair what appears--

Mr. Dewar: Well, I could suggest that you prepare an amendment, which I may accept.

Mr. DUGGAN: The action we propose to take is to vote against the clause. That is the remedy we propose.

Mr. Dewar: That is not what you said at the second-reading stage.

Mr. DUGGAN: I pointed out at the second-reading stage that the Bill does contain some good clauses. Obviously it would be silly to vote against a Bill that provides improvements in the conditions of widows. How foolish it would be for any responsible political body to oppose at the secondreading stage a Bill which had some beneficial provisions for a number of people merely to deal with a special situation. As I pointed out previously, the Bill has some beneficial provisions. If the debate has taken a turn that the Minister does not like, he can thank the hon. member for Nundah. I regret that as I was obliged to make an A.B.C. broadcast this morning I was unable to be here earlier. Consequently, I do not know just what the hon. member for Nundah said this morning. He is not content with having intruded unnecessarily, and seeing that he is so pleased about the record I


might say that I have been approached by several members of the Government, who expressed regret that the hon. member had embarrassed the Minister by coming in on this matter.

A Government Member: What has this to do with it?

Mr. DUGGAN: It has a Jot to do with it, because it was a very provocative and untruthful statement about the security aspect.

Mr. KNOX: I rise to a point of order. I made no untruthful statement in this House. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his remark.

Mr. DUGGAN: I cannot accept that statement because the hon. member said in this House--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order has been taken by the hon. member for Nundah to the effect that he made no untruthful statement in this House, and he asks that the hon. gentleman withdraw his remark.

Mr. DUGGAN: I cannot accept that statement. The hon. member said that it was the policy of the A.L.P. to abolish the security force in the Commonwealth. He said that. and I rose to a point of order and denied it. He accepted my assurance and then restated the position. Yesterday, I quoted the official decision of the Federal conference in this matter. I say that the hon. member was telling an untruth because it is not the policy of the Federal Labour Party, or the State Labour Party, to abolish the security section of our police forces. If I have to accept that it is a truthful statement I have to deny the official Labour policy, and I am not prepared to do that. That is the point I want to make.

I make it abundantly clear from the Opposition's point of view-as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has established, I am certain, although I did not hear his speech-that we are not debating the desirability of retaining the security branch of the Police Force in Queensland. Indeed, we want it; we think it is desirable that it should continue and we want to see it continue on the lines on which it has functioned so successfully for a number of years.

In one sense, the whole of the basis of our protest against this clause is the giving of power to the Commis·sioner of Policebecause of his declaration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council-to have an appeal heard in camera. If it is desirable that an appeal should be heard in camera, then it should be so heard. We are debating the hearing in camera of an appeal against a person for promotion, not the retention or abolition of the Queensland security section of the Police Force. That should be abundantly clear. I am not denying, nor is the Opposition, that it is

doing a good job, and a necessary job, from a security point of view. I heard the hon. member for Bundaberg speak this morning, and I do not think that, at any stage of his submissions, he suggested that we should undermine or remove the security section of the Police Force, nor has anyone else on this side of the Chamber. We are dealing purely with appeals. We gave the Minister abundant evidence in the introductory stage and the second-reading stage to show that we are concerned about this matter and that he should take steps to have heard in camera only that section of the evidence that might contain some security information.

We went right through the war years and there was no occasion to amend the Act in this way. I challenged the Minister to show that any representations had been made by the Commonwealth authorities during the war years to amend this Act because the security of the Commonwealth was in some way endangered by its provisions. If the Minister had that information it was his bounden duty to divulge it to the Chamber, but he has not done so. In the absence of that information, no-one could say that in 1963-compared with 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, when we were at war and when the security risk would have been ever so much greater-there would have been some indication on the part of the Commonwealth that it desired an amendment of the Act. The Minister has not supplied one case to show that the security of the State or the Commonwealth has been endangered through these appeals. These matters are not discussed in detail in the appeal court. I do not think that information is put forward merely because a person is assigned to a particular case. If it is, measures can be taken to hear that part of the evidence in camera. Much as some newspapers engage in sensationalism, I do not know of any responsible newspaper that would take advantage of the existing provision, even in the absence of a declaration from the chairman that the matter was in camera; I do not think any responsible newspaper in Australia would want to endanger security by divulging information that was revealed in a police appeal. That is the only point I want to make.

I have no particular quarrel with the Minister's introduction; I think he will acknowledge that. It is not a question of anything personal with him; but if he tries to embarrass us and to score off us in a completely unworthy way, I can only point out that we are anxious to help him in this matter. If there are any weaknesses in the security provisions, we will be the first to offer help; but, because he brought an irresponsible member into the debate in a way that was not helpful to the Minister and was not strictly relevant--

Mr. Dewar: You say I brought the member in?


Mr. DUGGAN: No, I do not think the Minister did; I am certain he did not; but the member was brought into the debate; perhaps even, he came in of his own volition.

Mr. Dewar: Will you clarify what you meant when you said that I tried to score off the Opposition?

Mr. DUGGAN: I said Government members did.

Mr. Dewar: No; you said I did.

Mr. DUGGAN: I do not think I said that, but, if I did, I exclude the Minister. I have no quarrel whatever with the Minister's introduction. If he did not give us all the information, I do not say it was deliberate. I am not criticising that aspect of it. I am mainly concerned about the hon. member for Nundah, who was responsible for extending the debate much longer than was necessary.

We oppose the principle of having these appeals heard in camera unless it can be shown decisively that the evidence justifies it. We do not want to see an extension of the principle; we think it is undesirable, and for that reason we propose to vote against the clause.

Hon. A. T. DEW AR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (12.32 p.m.): I desire to move an amendment to the clause, and I think the Leader of the Opposition now has a copy of it. I move the following amendment-

"On page 2, line 25, after the word 'case', insert the words-

'wherein evidence respecting service as a member of the Special Branch of the Police Force may be adduced'."

I want to make it clear in respect of the comments just made by the Leader of the Opposition that not only was it not my intention to omit particulars of any of the provisions of the Bill from my introduction, but in fact I did not leave anything out. When I became a Minister of the Crown I made up my mind that, whenever I introduc~d a Bill into this Assembly, my outline of 1t would deal with every single facet of the measure. I have adopted that practice and I do not think anyone could rightly say that I have departed from it. I have given full explanations of the contents of every Bill I have introduced.

I have made it clear that there was no intention on the part of the Government in introducing this provision to have it apply to <;>ther than appeals relating to the promotiOn of officers concerned with the special branch. As members of the Opposition and !he. hon. member for Bundaberg have md1cated that, the way the clause is drafted the provision could well at some stage i~ the future be applied to other appeals, I now seek to amend it so that the clear intention of the Government will be expressed in the

measure. In other words, I accept the premise of hon. members opposite. I do not think there is any need to comment further on it. The clause as amended will specifically tie the provision down to appeals relating to the promotion of officers concerned with the special branch.

I now have factual information that the special branch was established in 1939 and it continued till 1942, when its staff was seconded to the Commonwealth until 1944. It was re-created in the Police Department in April 1948, no doubt when the hon. member for Bundaberg and the Leader of the Opposition were members of the Government.

Mr. Walsh: No, I was out then.

Mr. DEW AR: Oh, the hon. member was out in the wilderness. It serves him right.

Mr. Walsh: It might happen to you.

Mr. DEWAR: Initially, away back in 1939, the special branch had a staff of seven and now it has a staff of 11. In view of the expansion of the activities of the State in that time. I am sure no-one could claim that the increase of four was disproportionate with increases in staff handling other aspects of administration.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (12.35 p.m.): The amendment introduced by the Minister does not go quite as far as I should like it to, but it is an acknowledgment of the objection that we registered. I do not want there to be any misinterpretation that we are concerned with undermining the security section of the Police Force. The Minister has set out to meet in part the objection that we raised and has confined this principle strictly to eleven members of a staff of well over 1,000. I do not think it reasonable to consider that any argument along the lines adopted by the Opposition was designed to embarrass the Government or weaken the authority and respect that we have for this important work.

For those reasons, I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged our objection. The fact that he has agreed to the amendment indicates that there is some validity in our argument. Although I drew attention a few minutes ago to the obligation on the Government to make legislation, the Opposition has an equal obligation to try to improve it, and I think that these words do that. For that reason, we will not divide the Committee on this clause now that the Minister has amended it.

Mr. COBURN (Burdekin) (12.37 p.m.): I have listened with a great deal of interest to the wide discussion that has taken place on this clause. Whilst I believe that appeals and investigations should be held openly wherever possible, I can visualise situations in which it might be in the interests of the State to hold them in camera.


Somebody therefore must have the authority to decide when such hearings shall be held in camera, and I know of no better body to delegate that power than the Governor in Council. With His Excellency the Governor are elected members of this Chamber answerable for their actions to the p~ople, wh~ have the opportunity of dealing wtth them tf they misuse their power.

I feel that the last portion of Clause 3 upsets all our attempts to maintain the security that we are so intent on preserving. It reads-

"Provided that in no case shall the appointee, appellant or a party to an appeal or the solicitor or counsel or, where there is no solicitor or counsel the agent, duly appointed in writing, of' any of such persons be excluded under the provisions of this paragraph."

Nobody has the power to exclude the agent or counsel of an appointee, appellant, or party to an appeal. Any one of those people could. be ~n enemy of the State intent upon upsettmg tts secunty. There is, nevertheless, no power to exclude him when dealing with matters deemed to be of such importance to ~ecurity that the entire proceedings are held m camera. It appears to me that if there is an en~my on . the i~side he could, by means of mformatwn gamed from the inside undermine our whole security, whether 01:

not the proceedings are held in camera.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.39 p.m.): So far as I a:n- concerned, the Parliamentary Draftsman rs merely wasting his time trying to work ou~ some amendment to incorporate all these thmgs. Apart from my observations on. ~he special branch referred to by the Mm1ster. I made it perfectly clear that I am against the principle of hearing in camera app~als involving police promotions. The M~mster could talk till Doomsday without bemg able to make me alter my views.

We have heard a good deal about special bra~ches, and apparently the Minister intends to mcorporate an amendment that will refer specifically to the special branch. From what I know of the operations of the Police Force ther~ are many special branches-the con: sortmg squad, t_he vice squad, the licensing squad, and. speCial branches of various types ~but nothmg that I have heard this mornmg from either Government members or Opposition members will take my thoughts awa~ from the fact that members of the special branch in this State are doing security :vork. They cannot be making investigations mto subversive activities as a result of the policy of the State Government. I should s~y t~at the dossiers, records and investiga~wns mto the background of people engaged m subversive activities would be directed towards the security and welfare of Australia as a whole, and I think that, somewhere a.long the line, the Minister said, in justification, that the welfare of the country might be involved.

I am still not satisfied that the principle contained in the amendment to the clause is justified, particularly when I remember that in quite recent yeaDS a member of the Police Force left the special branch and ultimately was promoted to the rank of inspector of police away from the special branch altogether. I think that was the gentleman who has just retired, Inspector Hird. Another one was promoted to the rank of subinspector or inspector. Apparently promotions could be effected in that way through the Governor in Council without the need to resort to the inspections under these particular by-laws.

I know-I have some evidence of the fact -that an officer could be detailed for special work within the C.I.B. and, because of the nature of his work, not be let loose, as it were, in different parts of the State to engage in arresting people for crimes they have committed. I refer particularly to Inspector Wex, who is now inspeotor in charge at Warwick, I think. He could be regarded as an officer with special qualifications, and I remember saying to Mr. John Smith, who was Commissioner of Police at the time, "How will he get on for promotion?" Mr. Smith assured me that he would not in any way suffer because of his activities in a particular field. Wex was retained in the C. I. Branch because the peculiar type of photographic memory that he had made him specially useful there. If he saw a criminal once, or even saw only a photograph of him, he would recognise him again. In one instance, he saw a person driving past in a car and recalled that that person had been declared a habitual criminal. I think that person had burnt down a memorial hall at Nundah, or something of that sort, and had escaped from the police. As he drove past in a utility truck with a false number-plate on it, Wex recognised him.

The provisions of the Aot have operated quite satisfactorily in the pa~t and, as far as I know, everybody has received justice. Surely to goodness the Government has not come across any case in which an officer of the special branch-which one I do not know-has been at a disadvantage because he could not produce relevant evidence from a file. As the Leader of the Opposition has announced on behalf of the A.L.P. that it is not intended to divide the Committee on the clause, I am not going to waste time by calling "Divide". However, I will at least have it recorded in "Hansard" that I oppose the clause.

Amendment (Mr. Dewar) agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Dewar, by leave, read a third time.

Contractors' and Workmen's [5 DECEMBER] Lien Acts Repeal Bill 1991

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (12.47 p.m.): I move-

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

On the introduction of this measure I explained fully the purposes of the Bill which, briefly, are to achieve a uniformity throughout Australia in respect of weights and measures in relation to Australian standards which have now been established in the place of standards which previously were held by the British Board of Trade.

The only other point relates to preventing certain persons circumventing the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts and other Acts in the issue of weighbridge certificates for goods.

The hon. member for Bulimba inquired as to how many sub-standards were in operation. At the present time there is one set of State standards as well as nine sets of district standards, the latter being held in the various districts throughout the State. In addition, each inspector carries with him a set of weights for checking at storekeepers' premises.

Mr. Houston interjected.

Mr. DEWAR: There may be differences, caused by differing temperatures. In the proposed Commonwealth standards there will be one set of State working standards, one set of supplementary standards, the nine district standards, which will be referred to as subsidiary standards, and the standards used by the inspectors themselves.


COMMITTEE


Clauses 1 to 14, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

THIRD READING


CONTRACTORS' AND WORKMEN'S LJEN ACTS REPEAL BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. A. T. DEW AR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (12.50 p.m.): I move-


I gave a complete coverage of the purpose of this Bill on its introduction. It was obvious from the points of view expressed by Opposition members on the introduction of the measure that they had little or no

knowledge of the legislation now proposed to be repealed, and a typical example of this was the comment by the hon. member for Norman, who stated, amongst other things, that a subcontractor is a worker. Had he taken the trouble to examine the Acts to be repealed he would have observed that there are specific definitions of "contractor," "subcontractor," and "workman."

Mr. Walsh: I still say the subcontractor is really a worker.

Mr. DEW AR: I am not suggesting that the subcontractor is not a worker in that sense, but under the Act "subcontractor" and " workman" are separately defined. In other words, each has special mention.

I also asked for specific instances where legal action has been taken under these Acts to recover wages for workmen, and I am still awaiting such instances.

The hon. member for Norman also inquired as to the average time taken by the Department of Labour and Industry in dealing with claims by employees for unpaid wages. In the time available, an assessment has been made of the metropolitan and Gold Coast areas as to the position as from 1 July, 1963. During that period 67 complaints were received from union sources and 17 4 from individuals, making a total of 241 complaints. Seventy-six of these complaints were dealt with in one week; 45 in under two weeks; 39 in under three weeks; 38 in under four weeks; 21 in under five weeks; five in under six weeks; six in under seven weeks; six in under eight weeks; three in under nine weeks; one in under 11 weeks, when the employer was no longer in business and the employee was in the R.A.A.F.; and one in under 13 weeks, when the employer was unable to be contacted during any hours.

I would also mention that there have been instances when employees, and some unions on behalf of some of their members, have not approached the department until six or seven months after the time when they could have made a complaint. This has added many difficulties to the department in investigating such complaints.

On the introduction of this measure almost the whole of the time of hon. members was taken up in speaking on matters concerning workmen, who are already fully protected under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Wages Acts and, with the exception of the passing reference by the hon. member for Norman, the position of the subcontractor, who is the person most concerned in the repeal of these Acts, was completely ignored.

I am aware that the secretary of the Master Plumbers' Association of Queensland has circulated to members of Parliament a copy of a letter dated 29 November, 1963, regarding this Bill, and the position of subcontractors was particularly borne in mind when the decision was made to repeal these Acts.

1992 Contractors' and Workmen's [ASSEMBLY] Lien Acts Repeal Bill

As stated during the introduction of this measure, conditions are contained in the Standard Conditions of Contract produced by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects protecting payments to nominated subcontractors, as is the case in other States. I do not propose to reiterate these conditions as they were set out in detail on the introduction of this measure. It will be recalled that I also mentioned that with a view to further protecting subcontractors upon the repeal of this measure, approval had been given that in future general Conditions of Contract for all Government contracts, not only will similar provisions be included therein in respect of nominated subcontractors, but these provisions will be extended to include what are known as "approved subcontractors," that is, subcontractors under special contracts which have been approved in writing by the principal in a manner provided by such general Conditions of Contract.

I again repeat that, in Victoria, as re-cently as 1962, the Statute Law Revision Committee, which conducted an exhaustive enquiry into the desirability or otherwise of recommending the introduction of liens legislation in that State for the building industry, decided that it could not recommend the introduction of such legislation in that State.

The amendments to the Contractors' and Workm~n's Lien Acts, as suggested in the letter Circulated by the Master Plumbers' Association, received full and careful consideTation, including consideration by the Solicitor-General's Department before the dec.ision _v.:as made to repeal these Acts. This decisiOn has not been made lightly. It has been done only as a result of comprehensive consideration and it is considered that the repeal will be in the best interests of all concerned.

The date for the repeal of the Acts is stated as being 1 January, 1964. When this date was originally proposed, it was anticipated that i~ might have been possible to mtroduce t!Jis me.asure earlier during the present sessiOn, which would enable a certain period to elapse before the coming into f~rce of the repeal of these Acts. As it is still considered there should be an equivalent lapse of time, I propose to move an ~mendment in the Committee stage, altermg the word "January" to "April".

I stated on the introduction of this measure should it become evident that the condition~ of work concerning subcontractors as contained in the standard condition~ of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, are not sufficient protection for subcontractors ?r that they are being completely avoided o; Ignored, that an assurance was given that the G<;>vernm~nt ~ould CO!fsider introducing amendmg legislatiOn, possibly on the lines of those provisions. I again state that this matter will be kept under continuous review,

and, if it is thought necessary to legislate to protect further the position of subcontractors, suitable legislation will be initiated.

With the advancement of the date to 1 April, it will be possible to look at this position further during the next two or three months.

Mr. LLOYD (Kedron) (2.15 p.m.): I move-

"That the debate be now adjourned." In moving that motion, I think it will be acceptable.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. gentleman may not speak on the motion for the second reading if he moves that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. LLOYD: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I move-

"That the debate be adjourned until the first sitting day following the implementation of the legislation, that is, the first sitting day after 1 January, 1964."

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. gentle-man wishes to move that the debate be adjourned, he must specify a certain time or a certain day.

Mr. LWYD: I have moved that it be adjourned to the first sitting day following the implementation of the new principal Act; I understand it will be implemented on 1 January, 1964.

Mr. SPEAKER: Very well.

Mr. LWYD: I think there have been sufficient protests and enough concern expressed publicly about the proposed repeal of the Act to indicate that, while the Act requires amendment and bringing up to date, it should not be repealed in its entirety without very serious and mature consideration by the Government. I believe the Bill has been rushed through too quickly for that mature consideration to have been given to it, and that many matters affecting the legislation have not been given enough thought.

We find reports in the Law Journals that indicate that the lien Act supersedes the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act, and these have been decisions of the High Court of Australia, where a lien is placed by a contractor or a subcontractor, or by a union, upon a building or constructing authority. All this is going to be withdrawn by one measure without any substituting legislation, and I believe that to be an indication that the Government has not given the matter full consideration. Therefore, I am moving the adjournment of the debate to give the Government the opportunity to give the matter more mature consideration.

I have telegrams here, one from the secretary of the Master Plumbers' Association, in Rockhampton, protesting vigorously. I

Industrial Conciliation and [5 DECEMBER] Arbitration, &c., Bill 1993

have a letter here from the Queensland Allied Building Trades Association protesting also. These are not from unions, not from workers. I have a letter that has been circularised among members of Parliament from the Master Plumbers' Association, the Master Painters, Decorators and Signwriters' Association, the Fibrous Plaster Manufacturers' Association, and the Concrete Con-' tractors' Association of Queensland, and if we had a bricklayers' association in the State I am sure it, too, would be protesting against the repeal of an Act that gives an opportunity to override bankruptcy law to subcontractors in particular, and contractors too, to place a lien without going to law, without going through solicitors and barristers. In other words, all they have to do is place a lien on the building authority or the contractor. But now the Government is surrendering its own prerogatives either to the architects association or to the civil engineering association, and that is a terrible thing. I think it is a hideous action on the part of the Government without mature consideration. I know the Master Plumbers' Association in Queensland were against the repeal of the Act because of the experience Mr. Gordon Kerven had when he was a constructing contractor.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member has moved the adjournment of the debate and it now seems that he is continuing th~ debate before t~e f:Iouse and discussing the terms of the legislatiOn. He is not permitted to do that except in a brief way. I ask him to make up his mind what he wants to do.

Mr. LLOYD: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Government is prepared to accept--

Mr. Nicklin: Ask leave to continue your speech tomorrow, which will protect your right to speak further, and we will move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. LLOYD: I now seek leave to continue my speech at a later hour of the sitting.

(Leave to continue speech granted.)

INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (2.22 p.m.): I move-


Full details were given of the proposed amendments concerning this Act on the introduction of the measure, and it is indeed very gratifying to learn of the generally favourable reception given to the contents of the Bill.

The main point raised by hon. members opposite concerned the amendment proposed whereby a union would be required to admit

65

as a member a person who had been found by the Industrial Court to have the appropriate qualifications and who was not of generally bad character.

. It :vas suggested that this was perhaps mtrudmg on the rules and activities of the relevant union. I refer hon. members to Section 47 (1) which, among other things, states that such persons shall be entitled to be admit~ed to membership of the union, and to remam members thereof and enjoy all advantages of ~embership, so long as they sha!J. comply wtth the rules of the union. It Will therefore be seen that there is no intention of interfering with the manner in which unions conduct their busines·s.

The hon. member for Bulimba sought more details of the two cases quoted in my introductory speech in respect of this particular a~endment. . I feel that I dealt very fully wtth the circumstances of the cases in question and, in fairness to the workers concerned, it is not proposed to divulge their names or to elaborate further in this regard in the House. However, so far as the case of the two workers who endeavoured to join the Colliery Employees' Union is concerned, the appeal to the Industrial Court is reported at pages 95 to 98 of Volume XLVIII of the "Queensland Government Industrial Gazette".

The hon. member for Belmont mentioned that the Industrial Commis·sion at present has power to issue union tickets. It is presumed that the hon. member is referring to the position that obtains in respect of persons who object on conscientious grounds to being members of an industrial union or any society or body, be it political, sporting, or public.

A general order was made by the Industrial Court in this respect, and it is reported in the "Queensland Government Industrial Gazette", Volume XXXIII of 1948, at page 1012. Briefly, this order provides that conscientious objectors may, on payment of an amount equal to the subscription fixed by the relevant union plus 10 per cent., be issued by the Industrial Registrar or an industrial magistrate with an appropriate cel'tificate.

Mr. Newton: They are known as industrial tickets.

Mr. DEWAR: Yes. I also give notice that at the appropriate time I shall move an amendment, copies of which have been circulated, to Clause 5 which refers to the advertising of trading within illegal trading hours. It has been brought to my notice that there is a similar provision in Section 109 of the Act, which provides that, in respect of advertisements in regard to working for certain wages, a warning must be issued to all persons concerned in illegal advertising of this type under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It has

1994 Industrial Conciliation and [ASSEMBLY] Arbitration, &c., Bill

been suggested to me that a similar warning should be given in relation to the publishing of advertisements encouraging illegal trading, and I shall move an amendment aJt: the Committee stage that will allow, as does Section 109, for a warning to be given to the radio station, television station or Press that such advertisements are illegal under Section 114A.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (2.26 p.m.): There are some parts of the Bill th<JJt are acceptable to the Opposition--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! There are far too many audible conversations at the rear of the Chamber.

Mr. HOUSTON: However, there are other parts about which we wish to hear a great deal more.

Although the newspapers seemed to indicate that there was not much opposition to this measure from the Opposition, I am afraid that the reporters could not have been paying much attention to wh<JJt was said in the Chamber. It is quite obvious that the newspapers are more concerned about publishing what suits ,them than about publishing the facts of the case. I am concerned particularly with what the Minister had to say at the introductory stage as to the reason for ,the proposed legislation.

In the case of the member of the meat workers' union, I, in common with the Minister, do not intend to mention the man's name. I believe that he has paid the penalty for his shortcomings, and I have no desire to make his name public or to include it in the permanent records of this Assembly. However, something must be said, because in my opinion the Minister's statement was not completely factual. I am not blaming the Minister personally for what he said. He is given certain inform3Jtion, and I take it that the statements he made were in accordance with the information supplied to him. He may have received the full story and deleted certain parts of it; but, of course, he would certainly be open to challenge if he did that.

The position is that >the man concerned was a financial member of the meat workers' union when the offence was committed. There was, as the Minister said, industrial trouble at the works because of the type of work that was being done-that is, boningout meat. It was decided by the company to increase the quantity of meat to be bonedout in each part or section of meat. Therefore, the members believed that as there was to be more work done in each section, the total should be reduced. As a member of the union, the man concerned was requested to attend a meeting. It was certainly within the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. period, but it was in fact during a smoko. He was accepting all the benefits of his union membership, .but he refused to attend the meeting, and again refused to attend a meeting l<JJter.

The Minister said in his statement that the member was refused admission to a union meeting, which is not true. He refused to attend a meeting called by the union. I do not see why the Minister or his officers should endeavour to mislead hon. members on that point. There is a great deal of difference between a man's refusing to attend a meeting and his being refused permission to attend. His action was considered so serious by the union that he was charged. The southern district council dealt with his case; he was allowed to present his defence, and apparently failed, and his fellow unionists decided that he was guilty of an offence against union rules. According to the rules, it was recommended to the full council that he be fined £2.

Mr. Dewar: It might be interesting to you to know that my notes say that the union executive would not issue him with a union ticket, but that he was allowed to attend union meetings. That is what I said when I introduced the Bill. You have just said that I claimed he was not allowed to attend. I thought I would put you right.

Mr. HOUSTON: The Minister suggested that he could not take part in union affairs. I am saying that he refused to attend the union meetings. That is the point. I did not say that the union refused; he deliberately stayed away from union meetings, although he was entitled to attend them.

Mr. Dewar: You are claiming that I said he was not allowed to attend.

Mr. HOUSTON: Perhaps I should have said he was not allowed to take part in union affairs. That would have been more correct. The Minister has the advantage of having his notes; I have to speak from what I remember of what he said.

This man did not have the opportunity of being heard because he was not present at the meeting to state his case.

With regard to the payment of fees, the position is that while he was virtually under suspension, with his case yet to be determined, his union fees fell due. It is a rule of the A.M.I.E.U., and most other unions, that if fines are outstanding they have to be paid before a member can be considered financial. That is quite a logical rule and is accepted by the Industrial Commission. This man had a possible £2 fine against him and the delegate on the job refused to accept his fee until he made further inquiries. The member concerned apparently sent the money to the secretary of the southern district. The secretary of the southern district at that time assures me that he wrote• to this member telling him the money had been received at the union office and was, in fact, held in trust on his behalf until his case had been determined.

That is slightly different in wording but completely different in inference to what the Minister made known to this House. The charge was that the union received the money


and did not acknowledge it. The union admits receiving the money and says that the member concerned was notified that the money was held in trust until the case against him was heard. Eventually the case was heard and he was fined £2. He paid the £2 and has remained a financial member since that time.

Although, as a member, he went to the industrial officers in regard to his case, I doubt very much whether the industrial officers heard the union's side of the story. I should say that this is not a case that the Minister can bring here and use to justify a demand that unions must accept certain members. The position is that men in industry have received great benefits over the years from the activities of the unions. Working conditions, wages, and all other matters affecting the welfare of men and women in industry today have not been attained through the goodness of heart of employers. They have resulted from years and years of struggle by men and women who are prepared to put principles first, to make physical sacrifices, sacrifices in time and worry, and financial sacrifices as well.

Those of us who are associated with unions know full well that for a union to go to court and prosecute a case for the advancement of the people it represents requires the e-xpenditure of a considerable amount of money. We also know that that money comes from the workers by way of union fees and dues. When all these benefits are obtained by sacrifice on the part of some people. is it right to allow a very small minority group, because they believe they are the only ones right, to say to the rest of the union members, "You go ahead and fight for things you believe are right. We'll take advantage of all these things but we are not prepared to fall into line with any decision the union makes"? The Bill will comple-tely take away from the trade union movement the provision that allows for the explusion of members for misbehaviour. At the introductory stage I asked the Minister to define what he meant when he said that a man was to be of good character, or something like that.

I have not had an opportunity of studying the first case the Minister mentioned about the man going to court but, naturally, I am quite prepared to accept the judgment of the learned judges on it. I have no great fight with that. The Minister has not told us that the union refused to take that man back. In the second case the union not only virtually took the man back, but the facts are that the man never left the union. He did not have a tick~t-as we call it--during part of the time he was working in the industry, but he remained in the industry all that time. We cannot be a party to encouraging those who, although they want to accept all the benefits of the trade union movement, are not prepared to accept the discipline that the union imposes through its rules. After all, union rules are brought

into being by union members. They are voted on at properly constituted meetings and are registered by the Industrial Court.

We notice that there has been a change in the procedure adopted in the recovery of money from employers who fail to honour their obligations by paying the money due to employees. I have no sympathy with employers who do not pay their employees their just wages. The new provision is an improvement on the present position, and we are quite prepared to thank the Government for it. However, I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the long period of six months. I understand that under certain conditions an employer might not be able to get his contract money because it is withheld for a period of time, but for an employer to hold out on the wages of an employee for such a long time after he has been told by the industrial inspector that the money is due to him--

Mr. Dewar: Which clause is this?

Mr. HOUSTON: Clause 3. I feel that that period is far too long.

According to the Bill an industrial inspector can take an employer to court if he refuses to pay wages that are due. If the court finds against him it could drag on for another few months. I believe the employer should pay up quickly or else a case should be presented to the court and the court should then determine how long the employer is to be given to fulfil his obligations. We must always remember that the employee has completed his part of the bargain. He has carried out the work and the employer has received the return from the article produced or the work performed. I should like the Minister to give some reasons for the six months' provision.

Another provision in the Bill deals with prohibiting the advertising of certain goods outside normal trading hours. I can well understand the reasons for this measure and I do not think it matters very much at this stage whether we think it is good or bad to stop these sales. That is not part of the Bill, so I will not debate it. However, I wonder what those engaged in this type of occupation will do when the legislation comes into force, whether the legislation will do what the Minister wants it to do or whether it will create other problems of a somewhat annoying nature. I have in mind the firms that advertise on Saturday and Sunday that they will demonstrate lawnmowers. That was the case cited by the Minister, and he suggested that when this Bill is passed that practice will not be allowed. Will it stop the firms from advertising right up till 5 p.m. on Fridays or perhaps 11.15 or 11.20 a.m. on Saturdays? Will it stop them from taking orders, giving demonstrations and selling on Saturdays? Will that be cut out altogether?


I should also like to know whether the door-knocking salesmen who go around at the week-ends, who have no permanent office or place of business, will be covered. Such people may bring the articles around in a truck with them when they knock on the door. Will the Bill prohibit that type of pressure-selling at the week-end, or during the week, when the womenfolk are subjected to a continuous stream of pressure salesmen coming to the door? A few years ago electrical salesmen were selling people various kinds of electrical appliances. Fluorescent tubes and fittings were offered for sale; the women who bought them thought they were very nice, but in many instances when the goods were delivered they would not work. Wben they tried to get redress from those responsible they could not find the office or place of business of the salesmen. The Minister may be able to give us some details about his thoughts on these matters, and whether or not the Bill will discourage these practices.

I do not profess to be a barrister, able to interpret every legal word used in these Acts, but on my reading of the Bill I could not clearly see that it will prevent this type of salesman selling these articles. I will leave further comment on the Bill until the Committee stage.

Mr. NEWTON (Belmont) (2.44 p.m.): I enter the debate to raise one matter which I mentioned during the introductory stage concerning admittance to membership of a union. Like the hon. member for Bulimba, I am concerned about the article which appeared in the editorial of "The CourierMail" this morning using my name and stating what I said. The article concluded by saying-

"But there must be law to ensure that union rules are justly applied."

I do not know what the newspaper people do in their spare time, but I suggest that when they have some spare time they should get the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and read it. A study of the sections in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act shows that they particularly cover union rules and clearly indicate what may be done about them by an industrial magistrate or the Industrial Court. Even the rule governing admission to membership of any union is taken almost word for word from the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

My main purpose in rising is to discuss the penalties to be imposed on unions where a court is satisfied that a person has the qualifications to join a particular union. The Minister has given us only one incident. I know of only one myself. I think it was a member of the Operative Painters and Decorators' Union some years back who had to go to the court to prove his qualifications. The court found that he had the qualifications and the union refused him membership. Every time we on this side of

the House make a statement we are challenged by the Minister to cite cases. I throw that back at the Government in this instance. Only one case has been given to us.

I think the penalties are high and I doubt whether they are necessary because in other sections the Act clearly states what powers are given. It seems to me that, in any case, on the admission of members, without the new provision, the Industrial Court or the Industrial Commission has powers under the existing Act. In the long experience I have had as industrial organiser in Queensland I have found that if they cannot "fit" you with one section of the Act, they will "fit" you with two or three others.

Dealing with the rules of unions-what a union is bound to do and what it has doneit is quite clearly set out in the provisions what powers the industrial magistrate or the Industrial Commission has. Apparently the penalties set out in the Bill are to be imposed when the court has assured itself that the person has the necessary qualifications to become a member of a particular union. If the union does not admit that member, where does the case go? The Act lays down quite clearly how much an industrial magistrate can fine a union or its members for a particular offence. In some cases an industrial magistrate has power to fine a union up to £100. In this case it goes much higher. So it is evident that anything coming under this would be taken before an industrial commissioner or the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission.

In addition to that, there is the other penalty if the union refuses to carry out what will be asked when the Bill becomes law. A penalty of £5 a day will be imposed.

The Government should take a look at these things. No matter what part of the Act or other legislation we look at, we find that penalties are applied more harshly against trade unions than against employers. Even when the employers are taken to court fines of £5 or £10 are imposed for things far worse than anything ever done by the trade unions.

I cannot see the reason for the penalties contained in Clause 2, because I think the industrial commissioners and the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission already have power under the Act.

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (2.50 p.m.), in reply: There is really very little to reply to. I am alarmed and concerned lest any situation arises in which the workers of this State have to rely on men such as the hon. member for Bulimba. As has been apparent when he has made great pleas on other occasions in the last week or two, he did not even understand the matter on which he was speaking.


He complained that in Clause 3 the period of six months is too long. This clause provides that an inspector, upon discovering that an employer has short-paid an employee, may claim wages for six months back. The court can claim for 12 months, but the hon. member has the gall to stand up here, representing, as he says, the workers of the State, and claim that that period for which my inspectors can claim for under-payment of wages is too long. We have that argument from a member of a party claiming to be the friend of the workers.

He went on to deal with the right of a union to reject from membership a person not entitled to it. This is a flagrant misstatement because the whole of this provision deals with the non-admission of persons held by the court to be entitled to membership. Here was another argument founded on false premises.

The hon. member for Belmont made a great song and dance about complaints concerning penalties, and then went on to say that there are no such cases. If there are none, why is he concerned about penalties? At no time did I suggest that there was a great abundance of cases.

Mr. Newton: Then why bring in the provision?

Mr. DEWAR: It was brought in for this simple reason: what is the use of giving a worker the right to go to the court and the court to declare him to be a fit and proper person to join a union, and is not of generally bad character, if there is no compulsion on the union to accept him? That is why the provision was introduced. This beating the air about high penalties and then saying that there are no cases is typical of the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition.


COMMITTEE

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

Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2-Amendment of s 47· Persons

entitled to membership of unio~- '

. Mr. J?UFFICY (Warrego) (2.54 p.m.): I thmk th1s clause deals with an amendment of Section 47 of the Act. If that is so, I cannot understand why it has been introduced. If the Government desires to make any amendment to that section, it seems to me that it is getting away completely from the principle of arbitration which we on this side of the Chamber alw~ys support.

Section 47 (2) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act says-

"~ny question or dispute as to the qualificatiOns or character of any applicant or the reasonableness of any admission fee,

subscription, fine or levy or other requirements of the rules of any industrial union, shall be determined by the Court, . . ."

What better authority is there than the court to determine whether certain people should be members of a union or whether certain people should be fined under the rules or otherwise? Section 47 places that responsibility on the court. But the proposed amendment to Section 47 is designed to give this Parliament, or this Government, authority to decide within what limits the court shall operate. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply on that point. I shall be interested to hear from him, too, whether it is his desire, or his Government's desire, to restrict the powers of the court and to depart from the principle of arbitration and make this a purely legislative power in regard to the unions and their relationship with and responsibility to the court.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (2.57 p.m.): The Premier has suggested on many occasions that the Opposition should assist the passage of legislation and try to keep the debate on a high plane. I do not think I could be accused at any stage of trying to depart from that principle. I have always looked at legislation from my own point of view and endeavoured to make it as workable as possible for those who will be affected by it. At times the Opposition has had victories. In fact, during the debate on the last Bill that came before us, the Minister accepted the Opposition's arguments and amended legislation that he had brought down. Let him not tell us that we do not know what we are talking about. I shall have more to say about Clause 3 in a moment; I am dealing with Clause 2 now. When he has had as much industrial experience as I have had, I will listen to him and accept his statements as having some authority, but for the time being he is one of the babes in the woods.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member will keep to the point.

Mr. HOUSTON: I am keeping to the point, Mr. Hooper. I am replying to the point made by the Minister that I did not know what I was talking about .

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member will keep to the clause.

Mr. HOUSTON: Section 47 says-"All persons who are, by the nature of

their occupation or employment, of the callings in respect of which an industrial union is registered, have the appropriate qualifications, and who are not of general bad character, shall be entitled to be admitted to membership of the union, and to remain members thereof and enjoy all advantages of membership so long as they shall comply with the rules of the union."


I emphasise the words "so long as they shall comply with the rules of the union", because I think I have proved conclusively that in the case mentioned by the Minister the member did not comply with the rules of the union.

I know that, no matter how long we talk about it, the Minister will not take any notice. He has made up his mind, and he has the numbers behind him. However, I believe that I have the responsibility of placing the facts before the Committee and arguing the case as I see it.

Hon. A. T. DEW AR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (3 p.m.): There is nothing to reply to, but the hon. member for Warrego made one comment. Whether he understands it or not, I do not know, but the clause relates to what happens after the court determines the situation. In very simple terms it adverts to refusal to recognise the court's determination. That is all the clause does. This Government stands by arbitration and in that respect takes second place to no-one. That has long been the policy of the Country-Liberal Government and this Government is in very safe lmnds while it remains in the 'hands of anti-Labour parties.

The hon. member for Bulimba will no doubt have something to say on Clause 3. I did not cast any aspersions on his ability in industrial matters: I merely said, "Heaven help the workers of this State if they have to rely on men with the knowledge of the hon. member if he can read into this clause the fact that a period of six months is too long." The clause, in actual fact, provides that an inspector can claim back six months for a worker's wages. He suggests he understands the Bill yet he says that such a period is too long. I submit that he does not understand this clause.

He made the claim that my experience in industry is inferior to his. I should imagine that, in the many years I have followed the trade which I learned the hard way, I would undoubtedly have been in many hundreds more factories and industrial establishments in this State than the hon. member could have been in even if he had been a full-time union organiser during the whole of his working life. I may not know all the intricacies of union affairs-! will admit to that-but by virtue of the calling I followed, I have missed very little experience in industrial matters in this State. I do not claim, because I suddenly became the Minister administering this Act, that I know everything there is to know about it. I am human enough to admit that there is much I do not know, but I will learn as I go along. However, I find myself motivated to say that there would be very little the

hon. member for Bulimba could teach me about it, if he interprets the next clause the way he did this one.

Clause 2, as read, agreed to.

Clause 3-Amendments of s. 97; Wages to be paid in full in money-

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (3.3 p.m.): It is quite true that I did interpret Clause 3 incorrectly. I make no apology for that, but the reason I interpreted it incorrectly is that I did not think it possible that we could have such a clause under which an industrial inspector can go to an employer and ask that employer to hand over moneys due to an employee, without having any time set as to when the employer should hand it over.

Mr. Dewar: Immediately.

Mr. HOUSTON: It does not say so. I am pleased to have that admission.

Mr. Dewar: If he does not get it, the inspector can take it to court.

Mr. HOUSTON: I said before that I did not profess to be a barrister, and, when I consider industrial legislation and how learned judges in the highest courts in the land differ two to one on exactly the same argument and interpretation, I feel it is not a serious error to misinterpret a clause. If, when I asked the Minister for an explanation, he had said I had misinterpreted the clause, 1 would have accepted it 'Yith full grace and admitted that I had; but what is the position if the employer says to the industrial inspector "I cannot afford to give the man the mon~y; I have not go~ the c~h.:' What will happen then? Is the mdustnal mspector going to take the. employer imm.ediately ~o court? The Mimster says he wlll. I Will be interested between now and next sessionthe Contractors' and Workmen's Lien Acts Repeal Bill is to come up again-to make investigation and find out how often that has actually happened. I do not want to prolong the debate. I regret it if I mi~interpreted the clause but I feel that If under such a clause the inspector is going to ask an employer for money due to ~en employed by him, there should be some tu!le limit. If the time is immediately I am qmte happy about it. As I said at the outset, six months is too long. My reference was not to going back a period of six months to claim money; my suggestion was that six months was too long before action was taken. Even if I misinterpreted the clause I do not admit that my argument on that point was wrong.

Mr. NEWTON (Belmont) (3.6 p.m.): This is one of the most interesting clauses in the Bill. The Minister has now told us immediate action will be taken. What happens if the employer does not come good with the arrears of wages? That is what we have been concerned about for some time. The

Industrial Conciliation and [5 DECEMBER) Arbitration, &c., Bill 1999

departmental officers know quite well that immediately action is taken, if the person has not got the money or says he has not got the ~oney, it will be a case of another f!y-bymght contractor. We have had Ministers for Labour and Industry in our ranks, and we know what the position is. It is all very well to say what the industrial inspectors have been able to get for workers but there is a lot they have not been able to get because of the fly-by-night contractor. They are the ones who have been getting away with things. I do not always blame the employee. I am very interested in Clause 3. It is quite obvious that at least it provides for something more being done, but, as we have been told, it does not fully cover the position. I am doubtful whether we will ever be able to recover all wages due unless we get something more concrete in the Act such as that in the legislation proposed to be repealed by the Bill previously debated.

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (3.7 p.m.): These ~omments again are rather amazing. I find 1t very hard to understand the sudden interest which has been displayed in the last few days in workers' wages when, over the years, I have not heard one word of criticism from members of the Australian Labour Party about what the inspectors of the D~partn;ent of . Labour and Industry were domg m lookmg after the interests of workers, yet, suddenly they are an inept lot that are unable to look after the--

Mr. BROMLEY: I rise to a point of order. The Minister has suggested that members of the Opposition said that members of the Department of Labour and Industry were inefficient, or, to quote his words "inept". I refute that statement and ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. DEWAR: We constantly hear these implications that my officers are not able to do their job.

Mr. Newton: We never said that.

Mr. DEWAR: That is the implication. When steps are taken to tighten up a small loophole to make conditions better for the workers, hon. members opposite see all the "bugs" in the world in the move. The position at the moment it that if an industrial inspector calls on an employer and finds that he has been paying incorrect wages to an employee, he has to go through all the work of making a report to the department following which investigations are made and then action is taken. This Bill provide~ for in;me~iate action on the spot by the indutnal mspector, but members of the Opposition see "bugs" in it. In other words we are ~aking another step to tighten up on, or eradicate delays, but they see "bugs" in it. There were no "bugs" before this amendn;ent was introduced; everything was all nght.

The hon. member for Bulimba was unable to interpret the meaning of the words, "Upon demand made by an industrial inspector, an employer shall pay . . .". It is quite ridiculous to advance this type of argument, indicating that there are some flaws in what we are proposing to do. I again remind the Committee, as I did earlier this afternflon, that we have had many cases where employees and unions took in some cases up to six or seven months to notify the department of discrepancies. If there is any weakness it lies with the employees and the unions and not with the department. There is no weakness at departmental level as I indicated earlier on another matter. The maximum period taken this financial year in any of the 240 cases in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas, was 13 weeks. In the main, all cases are dealt within one, two or three weeks of our receiving notification. If any weakness exists in this phase of the community life today it lies in the delay of many employees and their unions in notifying the department. I repeat that there is no delay at departmental level. The amendment fortifies the department's position because, instead of having to go through the process of swearing out warrants and summonses to take an employer to court, the industrial inspectors may on the spot demand arrears in wages up to six months. If he fails to pay we will do what we do now; go through the process of taking him to court. Isn't it obvious what we will do?


Clause 4--Amendment of s. 113; Breaches of awards and contraventions of Act generally-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.13 p.m.): I have no desire to raise the Minister's blood pressure on this matter. I have had some industrial experience; I was an advocate in the Industrial Court and a union official for 22 years. With all respect to the Minister, I am not riding him down and I ask him not to try to ride me down on what I am about to say. I suggest that he look at Clause 4 and I should be very grateful if he would explain to me why he inserted this in it-

"An employee who receives from an employer, or from anyone else on his behalf . . . a remuneration less than that to which such employee is entitled under an award or industrial agreement . . ."

Might I say that in the many years I was associated with industrial affairs in this State I have never known an employee to be prosecuted because he accepted less than the award rate. The fact is that many employees are not very conversant with the wages they should receive. It would be completely


unrealistic to suggest that a station hand out in the West, who might be illiterate and who was paid by his employer less than he was entitled to under the award, should be prosecuted for it when he did not know he was committing an offence. He might not have known what his entitlement was. I think the responsibility is on the employer to pay his employees the correct rate. It is stepping right out of line to insert a provision in the Act whereby some poor unfortunate station hand or some other completely illiterate employee can be prosecuted for accepting completely unknowingly something less than the award.

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain 'to me why the Bill alters Section 113. I think the existing section covers the position adequately. The provision has stood the test of time. There does not seem to be any justification for altering it. I have handled Section 113 for over 20 years and I have never found any difficulty with it; but I see some difficulty in the new provision because it is stepping out of line to make a poor unfortunate illiterate employee liable for accepting something less than his entitlement when he might not even know his entitlement.

Hon. A. T. DEWAR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (3.17 p.m.): I will concede that probably the hon. member for 'Varrego knows a good deal more about industrial matters than I do.

Mr. Dufficy: I should think so.

Mr. DEWAR: But he is right off the track on this question because al! we are doing is putting back into the Act something that was accidentally left out in 1961.

Mr. Dufficy: It was not accidentally left out. If it was left out, it was deliberately omitted.

Mr. DEWAR: It was in the Act passed by the Labour Party.

Mr. Dufficy: Not this.

Mr. DEWAR: Yes.

Mr. Dufficy: No.

Mr. DEW AR: It was left out by accident and we are putting it back in.

The hon. member may not have been present when I introduced the Bill and explained the necessity for the provision.

In my speech I said it was on record that an employee had complained that he had been short-paid in wages by an employer. This complaint was proceeded with before the industrial magistrate, who awarded the complainant arrears of wages amounting to £166 6s. 6d. and £8 witnesses' expenses.

Later, another complaint was received that the same employee was working at a lesser rate of wages than that prescribed by the award. In other words, this man was making it a practice to go around seeking to gain an advantage over other people. He was electing of his own volition to work for less than the wages prescribed by the award and then, having worked for an employer for a number of weeks, he came and reported that employer to my department stating that he had been underpaid his wages.

Mr. Dufficy: He was making a practice of it?

Mr. DEWAR: Exactly. In administering the Act it would have been necessary to prove beyond doubt that these were deliberMe attempts. I assure the Committee that we are not going to look for men who are being short-paid wages out in the country area when they have no knowledge of that fact.' It is far from that. We are providing for the person who, with malice aforethough~, conspires to enter into an agreement of this nature and then seeks to take advantage of it, and we say, without equivocation, that he is entitled to be bound, just as the employer is in these cases. All we are doing is putting back into the Act a provision that was in the Labour Party's Act.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.20 p.m.): I was quite amazed at the Minister's reply because I asked him specially if this particular person of whom he spoke made a practice of it, and he said that he did. That indicates that there are quite a number of employers who are very happy if employees make a practice of working for less than award rates. That is what the Minister indicated, which I know is completely correct.

I do not say that this is general, but I know from my experience that there are many employers who are very happy if they can get people to work for less than award rates. What I would like the Minister to understand is that the employer is not subject to any economic pressure, but in very many cases the employee is. There is no question about that. There may be some excuse for the employee who, under economic pressure, accepts a wage less than his entitlement under the award, but there is no justification at all for an employer to accept the services of an employee at something less than the award rate. As the Minister states, there are people who make a habit of doing this, and there are some who will be accepted by employers provided they are prepared to work for less than the award rate.

Let me say that over a period of many years I have never known one case in the industrial history of this State in which an


employee was prosecuted, or had action taken against him before an industrial magistrate or before the Industrial Court, for working for less than the award rate.

Mr. Pizzey: What about all the time when your party was in office? Were there any then?

Mr. DUFFICY: I am saying that this never happened at any time. If he is able to, I ask the Minister to quote one case in which such action was taken. That is what I am particularly concerned about. The amendment reads-

"An employee who receives from an employer, or from anyone on his behalf, and an employer who, and any person on his behalf who, pays to an employee a remuneration less than that to which such employee is entitled under an award or industrial agreement, shall be deemed to commit a breach of such award or industrial agreement."

A breach of an award or industrial agreement becomes an offence under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

There is another point on which I should like the Minister to advise me. Because it is an offence and action is taken under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I assume that the employer charged may employ counsel. To meet that position, the employee is also required to engage counsel, which is particularly expensive. I cannot see any justification for that at all.

Mr. NEWTON (Belmont) (3.24 p.m.): I do not know whether the Minister has taken into consideration that when basic-wage adjustments, marginal increases, and things of that nature are granted by the Arbitration Commission, the usual practice and custom of employers is not to pay them till they are published in the "Government Gazette." There are parts of the State in which a "Government Gazette" is never seen. Employers' organisations may send out copies of court decisions to make sure that the members of their organisations are covered, but a great number of employees in the State would not be aware of any increases that were granted.

Take the case of members of my own union. We put out an award book, and from time to time we publish an award sheet showing increases granted by the court by way of cost-of-living adjustments, penalty rates, or anything of that nature. But it would be almost impossible to inform people in some western areas of court decisions, because "Government Gazettes" are not circulated out there and copies of the award frequently are not available. Employees may be working for a employer for some time and not know that they were not receiving the correct award rate. This has happened on many occasions, particularly when marginal

increases of 18s. and 27s. were granted and when the basic wage increased by about £1. Departmental officers would know very well that these were some of the problems associated with arrears of wages.

We should ensure that this clause makes it possible to overcome the problems to which the Minister referred. I, like the hon. member for Warrego, cannot understand any employer allowing an employee to work for less than the award wage when he knows that it is his responsibility to see that that rate is paid. Perhaps this point may have been overlooked. An employee may quite innocently, not knowing that an increase has been gazetted, be working for less than the award rate of pay and be caught if an industrial inspector comes round. I have in mind particularly increases such as quarterly adjustments to the basic wage, marginal increases, increase in penalty rates, and things of that sort.

Hon. A. T. DEW AR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (3.28 p.m.): I am very much afraid that the hon. memb~r f<;r Warrego fell into a trap that he set m. h1s earlier comments and was somewhat surpnsed when I quoted a case in which this actually happened.

In reply to the hon. n:ember ~or B~lmont, I reiterate that there 1s no mtentwn of enforcing the provisions of the Act unfairly when delays in paying margins occur because of long lines of communication or because people are out of touch with increases that have been granted. What must be clearly understood is that the Factories and Shops Act the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration' Act and the Wages Act come within the jurisdiction of the chief inspector, Mr. Metcalfe. He and former chief inspectors have always administered these Acts, no matter what Government was in power, with common sense and I defy anyone, either in this Assembly or outside it, to suggest in any way that precipitate action has ever been instituted by officers of the Department of Labour and Industry in respect of these matters. The Acts have always been administered with common sense and with due regard to all relevant factors, and there is not one chance in 20,000,000 that the department would initiate action against an employee if by any stretch of the imagination the fact that he was working for less than the award could be attributed to a cause other than that he had entered into a surreptitious arrangement in order to gain a particular advantage over another person.

It was in the old Act under Labour, and we agreed that it should be in the Act so that the department would be able to take action against the employer and the employee if a surreptitious arrangement was entered into. That is all the amendment is designed to do. It may take place only once a year.

2002 Industrial Conciliation, &c., Bill [ASSEMBLY] Public Accountants, &c., Bill

The hon. member for Warrego has asked for cases. I do not know whether there were cases under the previous Government; there could well have been; but I am not going to start a witch-hunt and look back through the files in order to quote cases in which a former Government may have taken action of this type. The cold facts of the matter are that they do enter into such arrangements and, by making it illegal and by binding the employees as the employer is bound, obviously the employees will know that they can be cited as readily as the employer. That is precisely why we want to bring it into the Act because there will be no likelihood of employees entering into any shirt-tail arrangements which will allow this sort of thing to happen. We want both sides bound in this regard.

Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5-New s. 114A inserted; Soliciting

of business to be transacted outside of lawful trading hours prohibited--

Ho&. i\. T. DEW AR (Wavell-Minister for Labour and Industry) (3.31 p.m.): I indicated during the second reading that my attention had been drawn to the fact that in Section 109 of the Act it is provided that--

" Any person who publishes or causes to be published any statement which is intended or apparently intended by such persons--

(a) to indicate, on the part of an employer, that such employer is ready and willing to employ any person at a rate of wages which is less than the prescribed rate . . ."

The section goes on to state that such a statement shall be deemed to be published if it is inserted in any newspaper or other publication printed in Queensland, or publicly exhibited, or put on the air by radio, TV., etc., and it prescribed penalties within the section.

There is also a proviso reading-"No prosecution shall be instituted

against any person acting under the authority of, the printer, publisher, or proprietor of any newspaper printed and published in Queensland . . ."

unless there has been a warning issued to the person by an industrial inspector that the publication of such statement is an offence or the consent of the Minister to the prosecution is first obtained.

I recognise that Clause 5 of the Bill, inserting new Section 114A, which I fully explained at the introductory stage, seeks to prevent advertising unlawful hours and illegal trading. I therefore move the following amendment-

"On page 4, after line 29, add the following new subclause-

'(5) In respect of the publication of any statement in contravention of this section the provisions of subsections

( 4) and ( 5) of section one hundred and nine of this Act shall, with and subject to all necessary adaptations, apply in relation to every person other than the occupier of the factory or shop the business of which is intended or apparently intended to be promoted by such publication.' "

I have read to the Committee an excerpt from Section 109. This amendment merely makes the same provision in new subsection 114A, that if a factory or shop inserts in any of the media-TV., radio or Press-an advertisement that purports to indicate that illegal trading will go on during illegal hours, we will now be in the same position as we ure under Section 109. We will have to advise the media that they have just published an illegal advertisement. We will not have to advise the factory or shop that insert~ it because it is obvious that what would happen would be that when they were advised that the advertisement was illegal, they would simply put it into another form next week, and so it would go on. This makes it mandatory for the Press or other media concerned to be warned that such an advertisement is illegal.

Amendment (Mr. Dewar) agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.


Bill reported, with an amendment.

THIRD READING


PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS REGISTRATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (3.37 p.m.): I move--

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

I do not wish to add anything further to what I mentioned at the introductory stage when I very fully explained the provisions of the Bill. Actually it was introduced on representations made to the Government by the Public Accountants Registration Board and by the accountancy institutes and societies in Brisbane. Briefly, it provides for the reconstruction of the Public Accountants Registration Board by the appointment of an additional member, the additional member representing the accountants of the State. The Bill also provides for the discontinuance of the Register of Holders of Provisional Certificates in Accountancy, and gives greater power to the board to inquire into the circumstances leading to the bankruptcy of a registered public accountant; in addition, it provides for the revision of the board's present disciplinary powers.

Farm Water Supplies, &c., Bill [5 DECEMBER] Educational Memorial, &c., Bill 2003

I feel that the amendments proposed by the Bill will be of advantage in the operation of the board, which has a particularly important job in this State in ensuring the highest professional and ethical standards in the accounting profession.

Motion (Mr. Nicklin) agreed to.

COMMITTEE




THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Nicklin, by leave, read a third time.

FARM WATER SUPPLIES ASSISTANCE ACf AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. H. RICHTER (Somerset-Minister for Local Government and Conservation) (3.40 p.m.): I move-

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

At the introductory stage I gave a full outline of the provisions of the Bill and I understood it received the approval of the Chamber.

Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo) (3.41 p.m.): We consider that the Bill is extremely reasonable. It is to give technical and financial assistance to farmers, which is most important. It is making provision for flexibility and also creating certain advantages which will enable this assistance to function with greater facility. The right to repay to the Treasury from the fund and to see that the Agricultural Bank management costs are met are important points in the legislation. I believe that this legislation will be welcomed by the people seeking aid from the fund because they are now brought into line with the Agricultural Bank loans, the War Service Land Settlement loans and the Queensland Housing Commission loans in that the interest rate will vary according to the current borrowing rates. As we know, at present there is a reduction in that rate which will be more than welcome. Because the interest can go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the cost of servicing the debt will be helped from the Government's P?int of view. All in all, the Bill provrdes advantages for the borrower, particularly when interest rates are low. The borrower will also be able to amalgamate his accounts, which is another economic advantage to him.

As I said, the Agricultural Bank will receive its costs of management and, in addition, the bank is allowed to borrow from the Treasury. The amendments remove

irregularities connected with loans from the State. They are of machinery assistance and, in some instances, are of material benefit to the people who, through their activities, are doing something to benefit the State. As far west as Jericho in my own area a project has been financed under this scheme. A grazier has irrigated about 40 acres of lucerne. He has received assistance for which he is very grateful and he is also very pleased at the profit he is making from his small project. This is an indication to hon. members of what can be done. The enterprise of the people concerned is to be commended. I have much pleasure in saying that the Opposition agrees with the Bill.

Motion (Mr. Richter) agreed to.

COMMITTEE




THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Richter, by leave, read a third time.

SUPREME COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

SECOND READING

Hon. P. R. DELAMOTHE (BowenMinister for Justice) (3.46. p.m.): I move-


Motion agreed to.

CoMMITTEE


Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Dr. Delamothe, by leave, read a third time.

EDUCATIONAL MEMORIAL FUNDS DECLARATION BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis-Minister for Education) (3.48 p.m.): I move-


Mr. BROMLEY (Norman) (3.49 p.m.): I did not have a chance to speak on this matter at the introductory stage, although I did ask questions of the Minister some time ago concerning the future of these awards.

2004 Special Adjournment [ASSEMBLY] Valedictory

This legislations is probably the result. I had thought the Bill might have been introduced earlier in the session with the school year nearing its end. I feel quite disappointedand I know that disappointment has been expressed generally in the educational world -at the fact that a Lilley Medal will henceforth be awarded only to the student obtaining the highest Senior pass. I think that is a retrograde step and I think young people should be given every possible incentive. I think a Lilley Medal should be awarded to the boy and girl obtaining the highest passes in the Senior and not be restricted to the highest pass.

Mr. Pizzey: To whom do you suggest it should go?

Mr. BROMLEY: The proposal is that the medal be awarded to the person who gains the highest pass. I am merely expressing my opinion that awards should go to the boy and the girl who receive the highest passes, as it was in the case of the Scholarship. I think what is to be done i·s a retrograde step.

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis-Minister for Education) (3.51 p.m.), in reply: The position could arise where the top pass was obtained by a girl and the top boy might be in seventh or eighth place. I think those in the intermediate places could reasonably feel that it was a little unfair if a medal were given to a student coming lower in the list. It does sometimes happen that the top boy and top girl are not necessarily in first and second places; there might be five of one sex before the first of the other sex. I think it is better as it is.

Motion (Mr. Pizzey) agreed to.

COMMITTEE


Clauses 1 to 5, both inclusive, and schedule and preamble, as read, agreed to.


THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Pizzey, by leave read a third time.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

"That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 11 o'clock a.m. on a date to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Government of this State. Mr. Speaker shall, not less than seven days prior to the meeting date so fixed, give notification of such meeting date to each member of the House." Motion agreed to.

VALEDICTORY

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (LandsboroughPremier) (3.54 p.m.): I move--

"That the House do now adjourn."

As is customary at the last meeting of the House for the year, I should like to take the opportunity of extending seasonal greetings to all hon. members and those connected with the functioning of the House. The preChristmas part of the first session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament has been, I feel, a very busy one for all hon. members. Since the first sitting on 20 August, the House has passed 45 Bills, in addition to the usual Appropriation Bills. Most of the Bills that we have had before us during the session have not been highly controversial politically, but I believe that quite a number of them have been of value to the State. Of these, I would mention the Industrial Development Bill, ,the Northern Electric Authority Bill, the Clean Air Bill, and various other Bills of a similar type. They are designed particularly for the future benefit of Queensland, and there was very good discussion on them on a non-party basis.

I take this opportunity of thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his co-operation, courtesy and helpfulness in the conduct of the business of the House. It is very important to the proper functioning of the House that the Government should receive his co-operation and that of the Opposition. By expressing its views, the Opposition plays a very important part in our democratic Parliament. I think that was demonstrated on a couple of occasions during the session when the Opposition expressed some doubt in regard to Bills that were not of a political character and the opportunity was taken to delay their passage to enable them to be scrutinised fully before they are made law. The Leader of the Opposition has played a very important part in enabling the work of the House to proceed smoothly and with celerity, and I again extend my thanks to him.

To you, Mr. Speaker, I express appreciation for the able and impartial manner in which you have conducted the business of the House and upheld standards of procedure and decorum. You perform a very important function, and I believe that you have done your duty with credit to yourself and to the office that you hold.

A word of commendation is due, also, to the Chairman of Committees and the Temporary Chairmen of Committees who control the activities of the House from time to time; to the party Whips; to the Ckrk of Parliament and his officers; to the reporters

Valedictory [5 DECEMBER] Valedictory 2005

of every word spoken here, our "Hansard" friends; and, indeed, to all who are connected with the operations of the House. It takes the ability and goodwill of very many people to bring about the successful functioning of this democratic institution of which we are all members and of which we are all proud.

I think I should also make special mention of the gentlemen who are responsible for the creation of the various legislative measures that come before us. I refer to the Parliamentary Draftsman, Mr. Seymour, and his two assistants, Mr. Murray and Mr. McMillan. I believe that they deserve a particular "Thank you" from the Ministers, who very often give them rather complicated problems to solve, and from all hon. members who go to them for advice on amendments and the various provisions contained in Bills. In view of the rather hectic job that they have, I think there must be a very special place reserved for them in the hereafter. How they can put up with the troubles and worries they experience from time to time and still remain cheerful is very difficult to understand.

To anybody whom I may have missed and who has contributed in any way to the successful functioning of the House, I say a very sincere "Thank you" on behalf of the Government.

I conclude by wishing all hon. members and their families a very happy Christmas and a successful and prosperous New Year. I hope they will enjoy all the good things that come from the Christmas season.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba WestLeader of the Opposition) (3.59 p.m.): It is not merely as an act of formality that I rise to support the Premier. I think it is an appropriate gesture at the conclusion of a session of Parliament extending from August to December, when we have had the opportunity of discussing a number of Bills and have been able to complete our controversial business in the House in a spirit of amity, concord and goodwill, to wish members on both sides of the House the compliments of the season. I must confess that this session has been rather tame on the political front. The Premier has indicated that it has been one in which a minimum of controversial Bills has been introduced and consequently it is rather difficult, when we have Bills largely of a machinery nature that have been introduced because officers of the various departments have detected some reason why an Act should be amended to facilitate their work or to assist the Government in its policy, to raise anything particularly controversial. This session has been

notably free from controversial Bills, and for that reason it may have been much quieter than sessions ordinarily are.

As the Premier has pointed out, I think there is an obligation on you, Mr. Speaker, to see that the House conducts itself with dignity, and I think it is desirable that you should set certain standards in that direction. You have certainly set out to achieve that end, and I hope it has been accomplished to your satisfaction.

It is well to remember that, in an Assembly of this kind in which many verbal exchanges occur from time to time, sometimes the atmosphere is such that members sometimes interject or take some other action which someone not particularly interested in the proceedings might regard as unbecoming of a member of Parliament. While it is necessary to preserve these standards of decorum in the Assembly, there are occasions when certain not unexpected liberties may be taken by hon. members that can be countenanced without converting the atmosphere into that of a schoolroom. I hope you, Mr. Speaker, have made allowances for breaches that might have occurred from time to time in that direction.

I should like to say, without giving offence to anybody, that I have noticed in the last year or two a tendency for the proceedings of Parliament-particularly this Parliament -to be reported in the Press in less detail than was the case in past years. Why that is I do not know. Whether it is that those responsible for the alloting of space in newspapers consider that State Parliament is of diminishing importance compared with the Federal Parliament, or whether the material produced here by members on both sides of the House is not newsworthy, I do not know, but it seems to me to be quite obvious that, in recent times, flowing through newspapers there has been quite a reduced volume of news covering proceedings here.

I think the Press has some responsibility in this matter. After all, Parliament is the place from which flows the authority of the Government of the State, and the prosperity of the State is very largely influenced by measures taken here, in conjunction with those introduced in other Parliaments, including the Commonwealth Parliament. The Press increasingly-of course, in accord with the trend of the times-is becoming more powerful, with all sorts of mergers taking place. It is a tendency not peculiar to Australia; it is world-wide. Newspapers that have been functioning for many years have folded up because of the intense competition and the tremendous resources required to publish a newspaper with a large circulation. That makes it very difficult for all but the most powerful groups to survive.

I think in this age of democracy newspapers have an obligation to present opinion objectively and fairly. I want to say of

2006 Valedictory [ASSEMBLY] Valedictory

individual pressmen that they have accorded me many courtesies and that I am not speaking personally in this matter. But I have felt sometimes that, when an hon. member initiates something which is acknowledged by the Government or the Minister, there should be more recognition in the Press of the interest shown by that member. If his views are worthy of acknowledgment by the Minister-in some cases by the Premier -they are worthy of some acknowledgment in the Press. I have seen quite a few instances where matters have been initiated by somebody on this side of the House but no reference whatever has been made in the Press to the fact that that member was interested in the proposal.

In the interests of democracy it is desirable that the Opposition's point of view is ventilated from time to time, firstly to indicate to the people outside that we are a deliberative body and also that the Opposition has equal rights with the Government, the only difference being that one side has the numbers to give effect to its decisions, which are translated into legislation. The initiatory powers of the Opposition in that regard are nil. I hope that the Press will co-operate because it has the tremendously heavy responsibility of informing public opinion outside in an objective fashion.

In the heat of elections a lot of extraneous matter is introduced, and much of it is perhaps unworthy of people who want to preserve democracy. The preservation of democracy is one of the great challenges that face all of us today when we are surrounded with "isms" of all kinds that are gradually making their influence felt. Today Communism and the nationalist policies of various countries are to a great extent submerging the democratic philosophy, so we should do all we possibly can to see that democratic principles and ideals are maintained. That can be accomplished by the viewpoints of this Parliament being given reasonable publicity in an impartial and objective way.

I should like to join with the Premier in extending thanks to every section of the House for their courtesy, from the Clerk of Parl!ament, the Librarian, down through the vanous officers under your control, Mr. Speaker, and also to the other sections of the staff, whether they be in the various levels mentioned by the Premier or not. I think we have an extremely courteous staff. I do not think anyone can deny the fact that whether it is a matter of asking a messenger to do something. or the girl on the switchboard, or one of the girls in the diningroom, or one of the more senior officers of the Parliament, we always find a ready disposition to give to the member concerned whatever advice or help is required. I think these little gestures make the operations of parliamentary work much more pleasant, and it is pleasing to know we have been able to gather a staff here with those qualities,

and who display them in a manner which can evoke the praise of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of their respective members. I do extend to them all our very good wishes.

If I wanted to particularise I suppose I could pick out the "Hansard" staff be'Cause all of us, I think, are sometimes amazed that our speeches are as good as they appear to be when we see them in "Hansard". On refle-ction we think, "That speech was not so bad," yet when it was delivered in the Assembly it did not seem to evoke the same enthusiasm. For that assistance, for the smooth flow of language, for the correction of any grammatical errors, and for the opportunity sometimes to erase just a slight expression that perhaps posterity might not wish to see in our records, we are indebted to the "Hansard" staff for their help.

I should like to reciprocate the good wishes the Premier has extended to the Opposition and to me personally for any help he feels I may have been in the conduct of Government business. I feel that in many ways the Opposition should be conscious of the wishes of the Premier. Of course, if the Premier wishes to be unreasonable and push through legislation against the wishe-s of the Opposition-he has not done that-quite properly the Opposition can become stubborn and somewhat difficult. But if something is desired for the personal convenience of particular Ministers, or the speedy passage of some important measure is required urgently, and the Premier so indicates, I think he will always find there is a disposition to co-operate with him-a fact that he has been good enough to acknowledge, which gives us some measure of satisfaction. In addition, I feel that the obligation falls on the Opposition to try to make Parliament work smoothly and efficiently.

I should like to extend my good wishes to the Premier in his personal capacity. The office of Premier, or the office of any leader today, is a very exacting one. The pace of modern life is such that very heavy commitments are imposed upon leaders in public life. They have to accept responsibility for the actions that are taken by members of their parties or under the policies of the Government or the Opposition. There may even be occasions when their viewpoints may be in the minority within their own party, but still they have an obligation, out of a sense of loyalty, to defend those policies and to give expression to them. Like Premiers who went before him, no doubt the Premier has had some occasions when he has had to vigorously defend Cabinet policy on some matters even in his own Caucus. I am not aware of any particular matter, but no doubt it would not be out of character and pattern to note that this sort of thing happens. It is very worrying, and is something that the public does not hear about.

Valedictory (5 DECEMBER] Valedictory 2007

I meet the same problems at conventions, where I have to advance certain viewpoints and sometimes try to persuade people to my point of view. That imposes strains on leadership, but the Premier has actually a special responsibility. I think his position as leader carries a very heavy responsibility. After all, he has the responsibility for making decisions that reflect themselves in legislation. That is the main difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not able to command the same volume of information as is available to the Premier. The Premier has also the responsibility of acting on recommendations and accepting the responsibility for making decisions.

I hope that you, Mr. Premier, have a very happy Christmas, that you keep in good health, that you remain as cheerful as usual, and that you and yours may have a very happy festive season.

I ·should like to thank the various Ministers for their help. Naturally some have been more helpful and co-operative than others. I believe that in these matters they have a job to do. On the matter of questions, I have often laid down the principle that if a member on this side of the House seeks information, he is entitled, as a member to it and it should be conveyed to him in a courteous way. If he seeks by way of a question to secure political propaganda, he has to expect a retort from the Minister. I never take exception to that. If I ask what I believe to be a question designed to gain information, I expect to receive a reply without any trimmings. On the other hand, if I address a question which may be designed to secure some political advantage, I do not think I can complain if the reply is not exactly to my liking. I think that applies to all hon. members on this side.

To the back-benchers, on behalf of the Opposition I also extend my personal good wishes for the Christmas season. Some of them, at times engage in activities that provoke our wrath and bring us to our feet. Some of it is in good fun; when it is, the little barbs that may be evoked on this side are quickly forgotten. For the sake of parliamentary discussion, I hope we will not try to introduce notes of personal bitterness or perverseness. Very often in fun we say things that are not really meant to harm. The retort just comes quickly to one's mind and, if one has the capacity to use words quickly in reply, to score a point, I suppose there is an irresistable temptation to do so. However, I do not think there is a wish on the part of the great majority of hon. members to be spiteful and nasty. If I have offended anyone in that way I should like on this occasion, in view of the closeness of the Christmas season, to be forgiven.

To my colleagues, although we have not the numbers of the Government. I thank them for their help and co-operation. In Opposition we have not to any material degree the opportunity to use the Public Service in the collation of information. The work of members of the Opposition is very often difficult, particularly when a number of Bills are under discussion. For their help in debate, and on the various committees that we have established, I express thanks to my colleagues.

Finally, to you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of the privileges of this House, I thank you for the courtesies extended to the Opposition. Even on occasions when we have contested perhaps rather vigorously some of your decisions, we have not intended any disrespect to the office you hold or any animosity against you personally. Sometimes we feel that you may be somewhat hard on us, but I should like you to know that we do not wish to be offensive. We wish to co-operate with you as much as we can in your capacity as custodian of the privileges of the House. We extend to x._ou and yours, and the officers of the House, the compliments of the season.

I can only express the hope that during the life of this Parliament much constructive legislation will flow and that Queensland, irrespective of what Government is in power, will continue to progress and develop. Unless we do, we will find ourselves in a serious position in the future.

I conclude my association with the Premier's remarks by wishing everyone a very happy festive season and, I hope, a very prosperous one.

Mr. SPEAKER: (4.14 p.m.): This is one time when the Speaker has an opportunity to make a speech on which there is no time limit. I thank the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for their very kind remarks. I take the opportunity also of thanking them on behalf of the staff for all the kind remarks they have passed about their efforts to help all hon. members.

To me it has been quite a pleasing session in the respect that hon. members have been very co-operative. Maybe at times I have appeared to be a little harsh, but I have said repeatedly that it was only with the thought and the wish to preserve the dignity of the Parliament. There are times when, without the quips and the cross-fire in the Chamber, Parliament would be a very dull place indeed; but it is necessary to keep some control over them. If they were allowed to snowball, things would get completely out of hand. They are the times when one has to take perhaps a little more drastic action than is necessary at other times.

2008 Valedictory [ASSEMBLY] Valedictory

To the Chairman of Committees and the Temporary Chairmen I also extend my thanks. It has not been an easy session for the panel of Temporary Chairmen. On this occasion we have instituted a roster system and they have all played their part, and played it well, particularly when, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, the responsibility fell fairly heavily on their shoulders.

To the Clerk of the Parliament, the clerks at the table, the messengers and all those associated immediately with the Chamber, I want to extend my thanks also, as I do indeed to the typing staff, and to the "Hansard" staff in particular (the co-operation I have received from the Chief Reporter and his staff has been excellent), to the Librarian

and his staff, and particularly to the Refreshment Rooms staff-I feel that all of them have done an excellent job on this occasion, as indeed they invariably do.

I should like to reciprocate the good wishes extended by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish all members a very merry Christmas and all best wishes for the New Year.

As is the wont and custom at this time of the year, I extend an invitation to all hon. members to join me, with the staff, in the Refreshment Rooms for light refreshments at 4.30 p.m.

Without further ado-to each and all of you: best wishes for the festive season.

Motion (Mr. Nicklin) agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.18 p.m.

legislative assembly hansard 1963 - parliament.qld.gov.au · assume that the hon. member for...

Documents