Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 1967

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions [8 NOVEMBER] Questions 1489

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER, 1967

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) read prayers and took the chair at 1! a.m.

QUESTIONS

DENTISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

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

(1) As at September 30, 1966 and 1967, how many dentists were employed in (a) dental hospitals, (b) dental clinics and (c) school dental services?

Answers:-(1) "Number of dentists employed-

(2) Are any of these services under­staffed in dentists? If so, to what extent and for what reason?

( 3) Have any dentists resigned from the services to take positions in other States or overseas?

( 4) What inducements are offered to attract dentists to the services?

( 5) Will a sufficient number of Fellow­ship-holders graduate in 1968 to fill any vacancies?

September 30, 1966 September 30, 1967 60 full time (a) Dental Hospitals 65 full time 9 part time

((!} Dental clinics 49 full time 42 full time 1 visiting specialist 1 part time ..

2 visiting specialists 12 part time

(c) School dental services 1 Chief Dental Officer 18 Den tal Officers

I Chief Dental Officer 15 Dental Officers "

(2) "At the present time, the following vacancies exist at dental hospitals and clinics:-Brisbane Dental Hospital, 2; South Brisbane Dental Hospital, 6; country dental clinics, 15; total, 23. The follow­ing private dentists are employed part­time to offset these vacancies :-Brisbane Dental Hospital, 4; South Brisbane Dental Hospital, 5; country dental clinics, 10; total, 19. There are vacancies for five dental officers in the School Health Services, including the positions of two fe.llowship-holders at present overseas on study leave. As a result of the dental course being extended from four to five years, dentists who otherwise would have completed their course in February, 1966, did not finish until December, 1966. The number graduating in February, 1966, was restricted to those who failed their final e'lams in the previous year and numbered 18, inducting two fellowship-holders. There have been insufficient applications to fill vacancies."

(3} "Yes. one dental

Over a period of 12 months officer from School Health

services resigned to go overseas and one went interstate. During the same period, seven dental officers from dental hospitals and clinics resigned to go overseas and two went interstate."

( 4) "All dentists employed are engaged under the terms and conditions of relevant awards."

( _- '; "There are six in dentistry expected December. 1967 ."

fellowship-holders to graduate in

ESCAPE OF CHEMICAL GASES, PINKENBA

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

( 1) Is he aware that another uncon­trolled outflow of chemical gases from a chemical plant at Pinkenba occurred in the afternoon of November 6?

( 2) Has an investigation been held or is any to be held into this occurrence?

( 3) If an investigation has been held, who and what was found to be responsible?

( 4) When can the residents of Pinkenba feel assured that such incidents will be adequately controlled and eliminated?

Answers:-( 1) "Yes, I am advised that a limited

emissi-on of gases occurred from a chemical plant at Pinkenba at the time stated."

(2) "Yes." (3) "The incident occurred in the late

afternoon and on being advised of it, the Director of Air Pollution Control imme­diately visited the area. He interviewed several residents but could find no evidence of any unusual emissions in the area. Indeed, local residents were unable to state which works the emission might have come from. Further inquiries revealed that the emission occurred during the start up of an ammonium phosphate unit and was due to a defective valve. The emission itself was relatively innocuous. The company stopped production of ammonium phosphate until further investigations could be completed."

( 4) "Although neither man nor machine can ever be made perfect, the Director of Air Pollution Control is satisfied that the company is making every endeavour to reduce incidents which may cause alarm or inconvenience to local residents."

1490 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

LOPPING OF TREES, BANYO STATE HIGH SCHOOL

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

( 1) Who authorised the wanton destruc­tion of the only shade trees at the Banyo State High School?

(2) To whom were instructions given to completely denude the trees?

( 3) What were the detailed specific instructions regarding their pruning?

( 4) Who issued the instruction and what form did it take?

( 5) Will he ensure that tree destruction of a similar nature does not occur again?

Answers:-The Department of Works has advised

as follows-( 1) "The destruction, wanton or other­

wise, o.f the shade trees at the Banyo State High School has not been authorised."

(2) "No instructions to completely denude the trees were given."

(3) "The specification for the work required that the trees be lopped at approxi­mately ten feet above ground surface level, and all protruding branches be trimmed so as 'to give the trees a reasonably good shape when new foliage appears."

( 4) "The instruction to the successful tenderer for the lopping of the trees was issued through the Department's normal ordering procedures."

(5) "Instructions have been issued that works supervisors must guard against excessive lopping of trees in future."

FREE GIFT OFFER IN ADVERTISING OF ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES

Mr. Sherrington, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

In the event of a hire-purchase customer failing to meet his commitments in regard to a hire-purchase contract whereby the purchase of an article attracts a free gift, are these gifts subject to repossession?

A.n.swer:-"The matter of repossession in relation

to goods which are the subject of hire­purchase and the owner's rights and obliga­tions in connection therewith are outlined in Division V of Part III of "The Hire­Purchase Act of 1959". As the free gift does not form part of the hire-purchase contract and is not on hirelPurchase, there are no rights of repossession in respect of it."

TREATMENT OF INMATES AT KARRALA HoUSE, IPSWICH

(a) Mrs. Jordan, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Labour and Tourism,-

( 1) Further to his Answer to my Question on November 7 regarding Karrala House, is he aware that a girl of fifteen and one-half years has been, up to November 6, in confinement in Room 1, '"the dark room," for nine days continually?

(2) In view of the high temperatures in recent days and as the western afternoon sun shines on the side of the rooms, does he believe that with admitted conditions as to washing and toilet facilities this is humane treatment of the girls concerned and will he further inquire into the matter?

Answers:-( 1) "No. My enquiries reveal that a girl

was not confined in room 1 for nine days continually. However, a girl was involved in misbehaviour, including striking a mem­ber of the staff, on October 30, 1967, and she was placed in room No. 1 at 1.30 p.m. She was taken from that room at 6 a.m. on November 6, 1967. I am informed that, on admission to room No. 1, she was abusive and kicked and punched the staff. Furthermore, she was found to have pricked her left wrist to cause bleeding from a scar left by a self-inflicted injury prior to her latest admission to Karrala House. An old nib, some beads and small pieces of broken plastic were found in the room. She was later seen trying to find and prize with a corner of her canvas sheet any objects which may have been in the skirting board."

(2) "Room 1 is on the privileged side of Karrala House, and is a corner room facing north-east. It has two windows with wooden shutters, and two fanlights above the windows fixed in a partly opened posi­tion. 'Vhen the wooden shutters are closed, the windows remain open, and this gives cross ventilation. The conditions would not cause any more discomfort than would be usual in any average non-air-conditioned work room. Care is also taken to see that the condition of the toilet facilities is such as not to cause any offensiveness. I also inform the Honourable Member that, yes­terday, the visiting justice made his routine monthly visit to Karrala House, and he has reported that he saw this girl, and she had no complaint to make to him. Further­more, she seemed quite happy and, in fact, pointed out some drawing!'! she had done. In addition, no other girl made any complaint to the visiting justice concerning their treatment at Karrala House."

(b) Mr. Bermett, pursuant to n-otice, asked The Minister for Labour and Tourism,-

( 1) Is he aware that a girl who received "the treatment" at Karrala House is now serving a term of imprisonment at Boggo Road?

Questions [8 NovEMBER] Questions 1491

(2) As the punitive treatment she received at Karrala House was responsible for forcing her into Boggo Road, does he intend to take any remedial action?

(3) Is he aware that the girl claims that conditions at Boggo Road Gaol are much better than at Karrala House?

Answers:-( 1) "My enqumes reveal that a girl,

who was in Karrala House, is now serving a term of imprisonment."

(2 and 3) "This girl's record is such that her claims that conditions at the Brisbane Prison are much better than at Karrala House, cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, the transcript, which I hold, of a radio interview which Mrs. Gabrielle Horan had with me after she had visited Karrala House, amongst other things, reports Mrs. Horan as saying, and I quote:-'They were all big, strong, healthy girls. I was very amazed at their youngness, but also the amount of con­dition these girls had on. I believe Dr. Atherton told me that they acquire this after they have gone into the home.' end of quote. It is stressed that this girl has always been known to be an incorrigible girl, and ·the records in Karrala House reveal that her stay there cannot in any way be regarded as being responsible for forcing her into prison. In 1963, three years before her admission to Karrala House, she was under psychiatric care, which showed that she was then of borderline defective intelligence."

lJSE OF MEMBROSUS

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

( 1) Has he read the article in The Courier-Mail of November 3, 1967, headed "Death in 'Remedy,' Auckland," which stated, inter alia, that a coroner found that a woman had died from carbon monoxide poisoning following the use of Membrosm, a so-called Australian sinusitis remed:, ~

(2) Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement in Sunday Truth of November 5. 1967, regarding the use of Membrosus Chemicals, which claimed to cure asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, catarrh, sinus and antrum trouble?

(3) Will he investigate whether this advertised remedy is a cure or not and whether its use will cause death? If so, wi.!l he give the result of his investigations?

Answers:­(!) "Yes."

(2) "Yes."

(3) "Yes."

DELAY IN REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE IN IssUING CERTIFICATES

Mr. Coburn, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

Are applicants who apply personally at the office of the Registrar-General for birth or other certificates compelled to wait until the following day for the certificates? If so, what is the reason for the delay and will steps be taken to introduce a method more expeditious and convenient to the public?

Answer:-"Certified copies of entries of births,

deaths, and marriages, or extracts there­from, are available for collection by applicants or for despatch by mail by the afternoon of the day following the day of application. Upon sufficient proof of urgency, documents may be issued more promptly without payment of any addi­tional fee. During October, the average daily issue of such documents was 250. It would not be possible, under present staffing arrangements, to issue all these documents more expeditiously. In New South Wales and Victoria, where the wait­ing period is usually three days, issues may be expedited upon payment of an additional fee of $1 and $2 respectively."

FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS IN QUEENS­LAND TERRITORIAL WATERS

(a) Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1 ) Further to his Answer to my Question on November 16, 1966, and in view of public concern over a more recent incident of foreign fishing vessels operating inside the Great Barrier Reef waters off Cairns, what is the extent of the jurisdic­tion of the Queensland Government and of its responsibility as to territorial waters, reef waters, and off-shore islands?

(2) Can effective preventive action be taken by the Queensland Government and/or Commonwealth authorities in respect to such trespass? If not, what action does he propose to take?

Answer:-

( 1 and 2) "The vessel to which the Honourable Member refers has been working in the vicinity of Upolu Cay and Arlington Reef. I am advised that this Cay and Reef are within the territorial jurisdiction of Queensland. I have already put action in hand asking the Common­wealth Government to take up with the Nationalist Chinese Government the matter of this or any other Nationalist Chinese vessel encroaching on our territorial waters. I have asked the Commonwealth Government to make it abundantly clear that my Government will not tolerate such encroachments and, if necessary, will take punitive action to enforce our rights."

1492 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

(b) Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

Has his attention been drawn to recent newspaper reports concerning foreign

vessels operating in reef waters off If so, to what extent does Queens­

land statute law control and authorise law enforcement within the confines of the Barrier Reef waters and off-shore islands?

Answer:-"! have perused some recent newspaper

reports concerning foreign fishing vessels operating in waters off Cairns. The laws of the State of Queensland operate in the territorial waters of the State. The territorial waters extend to the three-mile limit from the coast. The baseline from which the territorial waters are measured is the line of mean low water spring tides following the sinuosities of the coast. All the islands within the confines of the Barrier Reef are part of the State of Queensland and each island has its own territorial waters. This is apart from the question of Queensland's claim to the waters within such confines as historical waters of Queensland."

(2) "The Commissioner for Transport does not authorise the use of drive-yourself cars to carry passengers for hire."

CH!LLAGOE-MITCHELL RIVER ROAD

Mr. Davies for Mr. pursuant to notice. asked The Minister for Mines,-

!n view of the heavy traffic on the Chillagoe-Mitchell River road and the urgent need to tramport building materials and supplies before seasonal rains make the road impassable, will he, in conjunction with the Mareeba and Carpentaria Shires, have extra plant and avai.lable to keep the road open as as possible?

Answer:-"Within the limits of available resources,

this will be done; and the matter dis­cussed with the local authorities carrying out maintenance on behalf of the Main Roads Department."

EXPULSION OF STUDENTS FROM NORTH QUEENSLAND CHURCH SCHOOL

POLICE LAUKCH

M:r. R. Jones, CAIRNS ;\1r. Davies for "'\fr.

The M iniswr for notice, asked to notice, asked

Education,-Furth<:r to his Answer to my Question

on November 3, 1966, concerning the sc:rviccs of Water Poi1ce at Cairns and in view of recent reports of foreign fishing ve:c:,ds in re.f waters off the port, will he consider having a fully-equipped police launch stationed there?

Answer:-'·The police at Cairns can adequately

deal with water police matters at that centre, with the co-operation of the Depccrtment of Harbours and Marine. It is considered that it is not essential for the Police Department to provide a launch for police at Cairns."

Fu:s PA!D BY 0PER\TORS OF DRIVE-YOURSELF CARS

Mr. to notice, asked Th~ i',Lnister for

( 1) Are taxi cabs that transport pas­sengers outside the limits of a provincial

required to secure a special permit pay a fee to do so?

If so, arc cars hired by "drive­firms required to pay the same

and, if not, what extra charge, if any, made to place these cars on a compctiL;ve

basis with taxis?

Answers:-( 1) "Yes, but only if the journey

exceeds twenty-ftve miles measured from the principal post office of the place spt?cified in the cab licence."

( 1) Have a number his control who had been ~~orth Queensland church hAo,,,;;r,"

l:een expelled? If so, what Department take?

(2) Were the studc:nls elsewhere after their expulsion? If so, where were they sent?

(3) How many students were involved?

Will be returned to so,

( 5) Does he intend :'llidents to the school in

AnslVer:-

homes

oth2r

1 to 5) "The Department of Aboriginal Island Affairs sponsors a number of

\tudents t-o several church boarding schools in North Queensland, and in September last, at the request of a particular school authority, 13 of a total of 19 attending that school were withdrawn. Due to the

termination of the school year students have been accommodated at

Palm Island hostels and attend Education Department schools there. They will, with other students, return to their homes at the end of the school year. The matter of further enrolments in 1968 is under consideration. It is a matter of some regret that the Honourable Member has seen fit to raise this matter here as it does concern the personal interests of the particular children involved."

Gas Acts [8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1493

ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines Main Roads) (11.19 a.m.): I move-

"That Bill be now react a second time."

When the Bill I gave members an indication of contents and the reasons for the proposed amendments. As hon. members wili realise now that they have read the Bill, there are only a few clauses in it and, in my opinion, their meaning is clear.

The basic points of the Bill are that the fertiliser company, or a similar company, is guaranteed a supply of natural gas up to the contracted amount and the pipeline com­pany is authorised to supply up to that amount. Before committing itself to the large expendi­ture required, the company had to be assured that its requirements of natural gas would be available at all times. Without the fertiliser company the pipeline would not be an economic project, and both the pipeline and the fertiliser plant can be regarded as an interwoven complex-that is, one could not live without the other. It would not be much good guaranteeing supply to the fertiliser company while at the same time restricting the pipeline company. The amendment, as I have said, assures that one company can supply, and the other receive, the natural gas.

The proposed amendment giving gas com­panies the right to recoup expenditure involved received a mixed reception from some hon. members, but I am at a loss to understand why. Surely nobody imagined that any company could expend between S 1,000,000 and $2,000,000 without any thought of getting it back. I am sure that if any hon. member had shares in a company that intended to do that, he would have harsh words to say about the management of that company. Of course the cost will be included in the price of gas; but my informa­tion is that there is little likelihood of any price rise resulting from that. I remind hon. members that all gas companies that hold franchises are subject to a dividend con­trol that allows them to pay to their shareholders not more than 3 per cent. over the current bond rate.

Mr. Tucker: Anybody who bought appli­ances previously was not warned that this was going to happen.

Mr. CAMM: It will not make any differ­ence to anyone who buys appliances.

Mr. Tucker: It will if prices escalate.

Mr. CAMM: There is no likelihood of prices increasing, as I intimated earlier.

The tariff blocks of the companies are subject to scrutiny by the Gas Referee, and if they are loaded in favour of one particular block, such as extremely low prices for 'industlial consumers as against inordinately high prices for domestic consumers, action

can be taken to have the matter rectified. in addition, if the outlay in conversion is covered by a loan, once that loan and interest have been written off they cannot be incorporated in the running costs of the gas undertaking. A study of the Bill will show that this is covered by one of the proposed amendments.

I do not want hon. members to think that I agree with some of the pressure tactics and other actions of the gas companies. I and other members of the Government of which I am proud to be a member believe in free enterprise; but I must emphasise "free enterprise". If a company operates under a franchise that gives it a virtual monopoly in respect of sales of any commodity (in this case, gas), I believe there should be some control over its activities. If a company is prepared to accept a franchise with all its attendant benefits, it should be prepared to accept the responsibilities and restrictions of that franchise. It certainly should not expect the best of all worlds. Recently, when new areas were available for franchises there was no lack of applicants for them, and all the applicants were aware of the conditions under which they must operate.

The fixed rate of dividend, as I said earlier, is 3 per cent. over the bond rate. However, if a company can make enough to

more than this, not by overcharging virtue of its monopoly but by efficiency

in its operations, the Act gives the Governor in Council power to increase the margin over the bond rate. There has not been anv such case since the present Act came into operation on 1 July, 1966, but I am sure it is a possibility. I cannot anticipate the decisions of the Governor in Council, but I should imagine that if an increase was granted, it would be subject to the company's reducing its gas prices proportionately.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are, in my opinion, self-explanatory and need no further comment by me.

Before closing, I should mention that at the introductory stage fears were expressed that natural gas might create a danger because it is odourless. This matter is already covered. Regulation 9 provides that gas shall have an odour that is distinct, unpleasant and non-persistent, and of an intensity that indicates the presence of gas down to one-fifth of the lower flammability limits.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (11.25 a.m.): On behalf of the Opposition, I register a very emphatic protest at the cavalier manner in which the Minister is apparently treating the introduction of this Bill. In recent weeks we have seen very important Bills introduced in somewhat indecent haste, only to find that, although they assumed a cer­tain degree of urgency at the introductory stage, they have remained undebated. Now we have this morning's episode of the Minister, who had promised in his first­reading speech that he wou1ct later deal

1494 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

more fully with the items contained in this Bill, skipping through the second reading and concluding by saying that the remaining sections of the Bill required no further explanation.

The Opposition regards this Bill as a very important one, and one that will have far­reaching effects on a great number of con­sumers of gas throughout the State. Because of this, and because it will affect a great number of people in our community, it is, naturally, a very important Bill. I chide the Minister for his indecent haste, and I chide the Government for attempting to rush important Bills through this Chamber.

In his second-reading speech this morning the Minister mentioned that a term of the agreement between Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. and the Government was the ensuring of an adequate supply of gas so that the establishment of this new industry would not become an uneconomic proposition. In this regard, I feel that the existing fertiliser companies have been sold down the drain by the Government, because, if my infor­mation is correct, the existing fertiliser com­panies in Queensland can meet the demand for fertilisers and can guarantee a surplus of 50 per cent.--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The Bill deals with gas, not with fertiliser companies.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Mr. Speaker this is a very important feature of this d~bate, because the Minister has emphasised that an undertaking was given to Austral­Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. that it would be guar­anteed a certain amount of natural gas. As I say, the existing fertiliser companies have been sold down the drain in order that this Government can introduce a huge fertiliser complex to the State.

The Minister said that his statements at the introductory stage met with a very mixed reception. Having perused his intro­ductory speech, and having perused the clauses of the Bill in detail, I ask, "Is it any wonder that, because of the lack of infor­mation made available by the Minister, and because of the lack of information contained in the clauses of this Bill, it did meet with a mixed reception?"

It is obvious that the discovery of natural gas will not be of any great benefit to the ordinary person in the community. We have realised this already in relation to the dis­covery of oil in this State. Because of the conditions that have been agreed upon by the Government and embodied in this Bill, it will be many years before any benefit from the discovery of natural gas will accrue to the ordinary person in the community.

Let us consider the provisions of the Bill dealing with the ,amortisation of loan moneys expended on the conversion of obsolescent appurtenances presently used for distribu­tion. This principle will have a far-reaching effect. First of all, it will affect the tenants of Queensland Housing Commission houses.

They will be shot at twice. Undoubtedly it will result in an increase in the rentals of Housing Commission houses. If gas is supplied to tenants there is no doubt that they will not receive the benefit that we were led to believe would stem from the discovery of natural gas in this State.

Many tenants in multi-storey unitiS are pensioners. Surely this would have been a golden opportunity to give these people the benefit of cheaper gas. It was a heaven­sent opportunity to assist people on reduced incomes and pensions by supplying them with gas at concession rates. This was the time the Government could have done some­thing for people on fixed incomes and pen­sioners generally-not only those who occupy Housing Commission houses. They should have been afforded the opportunity at this point of time to enjoy the benefits of cheaper gas.

What concerns the Opposition is that although the Minister said that the cost of conversion will be included in the price of gas and that there is little likelihood of any increase in its price, he did not indicate that there was any likelihood of a reduction in the price of gas.

Mr. Campbell: He didn't say there wouldn't be.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Of course he didn't. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, he did not say anything. That is why we are complaining. I believe this Parliament is being asked to accept pig-in-a-poke legis­lation. I will indicate why I say that. Unless the Minister can give us cogent reasons why the company should enjoy the benefit of the amortisation of the cost of conversion, we will be opposing the relevant clause in the Committee stage.

The introductory and second-reading stages of this Bill have been notable for the lack of information conveyed to hon. mem­bers on this side of the Chamber. One point the Minister made was that after any loan to meet the cost of conversion had been amortised, its repayment could no longer be included in the price of gas. He has given no indication of the number of years the writing-off of the obsolescent appurtenances is likely to take.

The Minister went to great pains to say that although he believed in free enterprise, if it operated on what might be termed a monopoly basis ,the Government should assume some control over its activities. The Government has gone out of its way to meet the wishes of the gas-retailing companies, but it has given no thought to the consumers of gas on to the price of gas as it affects anyone who may wish to raise an objection to a determination made by the Gas Referee.

Mr. Carey: Do we gather from your speech that you would like this project to be aban­doned?

Gas Acts [8 NOVEMBER) Amendment Bill 1495

Mr. SHERRINGTON: The hon. member for Albert is trying to infer from what I am saying that we would like to see this project abandoned. In reply, I point out that the hon. member for Albert has never made an intel­ligent interjection, let alone an intelligent speech.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister said-"As hon. members are no doubt aware,

the burners on present gas stoves and equipment are not suitable for natural gas and will have to be altered or replaced. Any company that is changing over to natural gas will therefore be faced with large capital expenditure in converting the burners. The replaced burners will have little or no resale value, except for scrap."

As a sort of afterthought, having stressed the importance of the conversion of the burners, he said-

"In addition, plant at present in use­such as retorts, etc.-will become obsolete and also will have little or no resale value."

With such a paucity of information concern­ing this legislation, we are asked to accept it on the Minister's broad and sweeping state­ment. He is not prepared to give us details of what is involved, particularly relative to the obsolescent equipment, and the Opposition is asked to accept this important principle with little or no explanation. In other words, Parliament is being asked to agree to the principle that, in order to suit the company's convenience, the consumer must bear the whole cost of conversion.

If, as a result of some development, the electricity supply authorities decided to intro­duce an innovation in the reticulation of elec­tricity, in this principle we are establishing a precedent by which we might well have to pay for an of the obsolete electricity-generat­ing equipment in Queensland. In the Opposi­tion's view, this is a very dangerous precedent.

The Bill does nothing more than stipulate in no uncertain terms that there will be no benefit to the consumer upon the introduction of natural gas, and that he will be obliged to bear the full cost of converting the various appliances in use. I repeat that we are asked to accept and agree to this principle merely on a broad, sweeping statement. The Minister has not produced one figure relative to the cost of conversion to show whether a saving will be effected as a result of the change-over from coal gas to natural gas.

If the companies were able to prove con­clusively to the Minister that from their point of view there was a need to have the cost of conversion borne by the public (with amortis­ation over a number of years), the figures must have been readily available and should have been detailed to Parliament before we were asked to agree to this principle. Par­liament has not been given any clear com­parison of the relative costs of liquefied petroleum gas and coal gas. We have not been given any details of the cost of coal gas per unit and the estimated cost of natural gas

per unit. We have not been told of any savings that might accrue from the elimina­tion of the gas retorts and so on that are presently in use for the generating of coal gas supplies, particularly in the metropolitan area, and no doubt in many provincial town and city areas. We have not been given any indi­cation whether natural gas can be fed direct into the pipelines instead of being held in retorts. We have not been told whether there will be any saving financially.

The advantages and disadvantages of these two products have not been weighed. We have not been told whether the existing huge gasometers will be necessary when natural gas is fed into the reticulation mains. We have been given no indication that it will be fed into the existing reticula­tion mains. There is some doubt that liquefied petroleum gas, which is usually of a greater pressure than coal gas, can be fed into the existing mains or whether in some instances they will prove inadequate to cope with the pressure.

Mr. Camm: What has this to 'do with liquefied petroleum gas?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am trying to bring out what the Minister did not tell the House. The obligation is on him to give us all the information, and he should be equipped with the full details of this matter before he asks us, after a five­minute or ten-minute explanation, to buy a pig in a poke. If my reading of the clause is correct, we could well find that the consumer will be obliged to pay for the rehabilitation and maintenance of the existing mains if they prove to be inadequate. The consumer could be obliged to bear the cost involved in the obsolescence of gasometers, and so on. The Minister did not tell the House any of these facts. He should not try to buy in on my speech and say, "What has this to do with natural gas?" If the Minister had been more vocal in his explanation there would be no need for these questions. At the moment the Opposition is forced to twist his arm to bring out these facts.

We have not been given one shred of information about what percentage of the equipment presently used will become redundant. Is it any wonder that we raise these objections? If these companies will not be involved in the generation or extrac­tion of coal gas many of their employees will become redundant, so there could be a considerable saving in wages. We have not been told the process by which this gas will be delivered to the city, or the number of employees who will be made redundant because their present callings will no longer exist. No estimate has been given of the total savings that will result from this con­version. It could be that because gas will no longer be generated in retorts con­siderable savings will be made by the com­panies compared with the present cost of supplying coal gas. Yet we are asked to buy a pig in a poke.

1496 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Mr. Carey: You are painting a very gloomy picture.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I feel gloomy every time I look at the hon. member for Albert.

l\1r. Carey: I think you are just a knocker.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: The Min'ster also said at the introductory stage-

''Legal opinion is that under the present Act the expenses incurred in the change­over, that is, conversion costs plus book value of discarded equipment, must be recouped in the financial year in which they were incurred. It is considered that these expenses should be recouped over a number of years to cushion the impact on the price of gas to consumers. Accord­ingly, an amendment has been included in this Bill to legalise the desirable procedure."

Let us look at the contents of the Bill. Again we see evidence of an airy-fairy approach. Instead of a positive limitation on the number of years over which the cost of conversion can be amortised, there is merely a reference to "prudent business practices". I am always suspicious of the use of such terms. I believe that the cost of which would include obsolci-cence of should have been set down in no uncertain manner, and a number of years declared during which the would have the right to write off that I shall deal with this more fully at the Committee stage. All that is stated is that the writing off will be done in accordance with prudent business practices, and no indication is given of the period that it will cover. A company might choose to write it off over five, 10 or 15 years if

so proved to be in its interests. Writing cost over a long period could well

have the effect of keeping the price of gas than it would be if the cost was off over five years.

I believe that that question, and the many others left unanswered by the Minister, lead the Opposition to the inescapable conclusion that full details of the Bill have not been

to the House. If the Minister does not a very lucid explanation of some of matters, we on this side intend to

oppose strongly that portion of the legisla­tion that deals with the determination of the price of gas.

As I said earlier, I believe that the Govern­ment has bent over backwards to look after the interests of the gas companies. One principle contained in the Bill gives to the suppliers the right of appeal against decisions of the Gas Referee, one of whose duties it is to fix the price of gas. The point that I make is that whilst the Bill lays down that the Minister or any gas supplier aggrieved by a price-fixing order of the Gas Referee may appeal to the Industrial Court against such onder, no similar right of appeal is granted to consumers. Many large com­mercial firms use gas, and many hundreds and thousands of ordinary wage-earners also

use it. Whilst the Minister has bent over backwards to ensure that both he and the gas suppliers have the right of appeal against decisions of the Gas Referee, who fixes the price of gas, the same right has not been extended to the consumer. In opinion, this shows a complete lack of m the capability of the Gas Referee.

:Vlr. Camm: Rubbish!

Mr. SHERRL'IGTON: man may say "Rubbi'ih"· why has he not

The hon. gentle­is rubbish.

that a r.ght of the

Bin the should be

The Minister He is typical all the

and back-benchers in the Govern­ment parties. When they have not an answer, they try to "rubbish" the Opposition.

If the company has a of appeal against the decision of the Referee,

the consumer should have a similar That again highlights the fact that no

benefit will flow to the ordinary in the community from the discovery natural

no benefit will accrue to pensioners or people on fixed incomes from lower for gas. If the ordinary consumer

a right of appeal on the price of gas, would have an to

that, according to their and their means, the price of gas was excessive. The fact that the principles of the Bill do not afford any protection to the ordinary person in the community is a good reason

the Opposition should not support the It merely lays down in no uncertain

terms the privileges and to be the gas companies the comr,arl;es

will be ·producing the various fields; it gives no ordinary consumer in the

the to the

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had some experience in the use of natural gas in the Townsville area.

V[r. Carum: Don't talk rot! There is no natural gas there.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Liquefied petroleum gas.

Mr. Camm: That statement is consistent with the hon. member's contribution to the debate.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I do not deny that the Minister has a right to make little interjections such as that; they do concern me greatly. If the Minister has not any better arguments than that to put forward, it is a poor lookout.

The hon. member for Townsville North has had experience in the use of liquefied petroleum gas in the Townsville area and has seen the conversion from coal gas to gas of that type. It has resulted in very little cost increase to the consumers, and I believe that the hon. member will emphasise in his speech the very important point that everything possible must be done to ensure that the cost structure is kept to an absolute

Gas Acts [8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1497

minimum so that the people of Queensland can reap the benefit of discoveries in this Slate. Until that is done, the only people who will benefit from the production of natural gas, oil, or anything else that is discovered in this will be those who trade in stocks and Up till the present, hon. members have seen little evidence to show that the discovery of any basic minerals or materials has brought real benefit to the ordinary person in Queensland.

I indicate at that, unless the Minister gives explanation, the Opposition will the claLises mentioned. I shall reserve comment till the Committee stage.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (11.54 a.m.): I wish to reinforce the argument so capably put forward this morning by the chairman of the Opposition's com­mittee on this matter, the hon. member for Salisbury.

In his posed the question: pany bear the cost?"

then I pose the question: why consumer bear the cost? At

the moment it that the consumer will bear the

Mr. Campbell: Who owns the equipment?

Mr. TUCKER: Just a minute. Let me put this argument a little more fully; I will not take up very much time. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, asked why a company should be called upon to spend $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 without any thought of getting

back. Surely, he said, this would not be a good business practice, and nobody should, or would in fact, contemplate it. I think it is fair to say that that is what the Minister said. Conversely, surely it can be claimed also that it is good business practice to look to the future. Surely it can be claimed that no business directors look only at the present, or perhaps to the past, but will, if they are to continue the business as its shareholders hope

will be continued, look to the years ahead, to 1970 or to 1972. This is good business practice.

If I might go back to, say, 1960, Sl!rely I could apply the same argument. In that year the directors of this business would not have been looking at that year; they would have been looking forward to 1967. That is good business practice, and it is reasonable to assume that that practice would have been carried out. If the people in charge of the company at that time were looking ahead they would have learned that changes were taking place overseas and in the southern areas of this continent, and they would have realised that certain changes were to be made in the gas industry. It would have been good business practice for them to provide for the change-over that is occurring today.

I hear no interjection. Surely to goodness it would have been good business practice to make provision in the profits that were going

to the shareholders in those days for the change-over that will be forced, or thrust, upon the companies in Queensbnd.

Mr. Camm: The gas companies are not allowed to accumulate reserves.

"'1r. TUCKER: Where do their profits go? As the Minister has been in of this industry for so long, surely he have been aware of these changes that were about to take place. It is an indictment of the Minister and his Government that no provi-sion was made for these ago, because those who will have full cost are the consumers, no-one else. This is a reason why the Opposition opposes this Bill as it is presented to us.

Mr. CampbeU: Who owns the equipment the subject of this amendment?

TUCKER: I am not going to argue with the Minister, who is not even in charge of the Bill. He does not know much about electricity, so he should not buy into gas.

We hear of companies operating through­out the whole of this State under franchises;

have no argument with this or with the fact that they are not subject to pressure from outside. Once they have been granted these franchises they can go ahead. They have been operating under the of the Government because, once have been granted these franchises, they have not had to

from anyone else. Perhaps said, "Well, this company has a

imprimatur from the Government. It has thus been ably led, and it must be making certain provisions for the future, or it should be." Those people then went ahead and installed various appliances that use gas.

the consumer who believes that he will be after by the Government and by the company has some rights in this regard. These are things I have mentioned previously. Provision should have been made for this change-over or conversion. We seem to have come right up to the brink and all of a sudden fallen over it. All at once the Minister looks around for some means to distribute the burden and immediately says, "Let us distribute the burden among the consumers throughout the State".

Once a company is granted a franchise in a particular area the consumers in that area will be at the mercy of the company operating the franchise. Perhaps that is harsh state­ment, nevertheless it is true. If the company has good business practices, the consumers in that area-I apply this to the whole of ,the State-could possibly gain some advantage. By the same token, if the company holding the franchise normally has bad business practices, its consumers will be at its mercy. Do not let us bandy around this question of good or bad business practices, because it can operate in both directions.

Mr. Campbell: Is this an attack on the South Brisbane Gas Co.?

1498 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Mr. TUCKER: Not necessarily, but I would say this: over the years there have been gas companies in this State that have been guilty of bad business practices. Let there be no doubt about that. If the Minister for Industrial Development wants a debate on that subject we will be pleased to oblige him at some other time.

The Minister for Mines and Main Roads has given us so little detail on the Bill. That is the argument we put forward today. If he had delivered a properly prepared speech setting out the details we have asked for he might have been able to paint an entirely different picture. As the hon. member for Salisbury said, he comes in here in a very cavalier fashion. Because he thinks that he has the weight of numbers in the House he tries to steam-roll us and not bother to give us the details we have asked for. After making a five-minute speech, he expects the Opposition to sign a blank cheque so that he can go ahead in any way he cares to.

Who, in fact, will benefit from the change­over that is taking place? Will the con­sumers benefit? Is there any difference between coal gas coming to my appliance, liquid petroleum gas coming to my appliance or natural gas coming to my appliance? Is there very much difference between them? Does the housewife see very much difference? On "All Points North", a television pro­gramme that I saw the other evening in Townsville, many of the housewives said they could not see any difference. After all, they are the best judges. The consumers do not gain very much one way or the other whether it is coal gas, liquid petroleum gas or natural gas that they are burning. The only difference is that perhaps one type of gas burns a little hotter than another. All that it means is that when it is being used for cooking the flame has to be turned down a little or up a little.

Those people in this State who are important to us will not be gaining very much from the use of natural gas. The Minister has said, "At least there will not be a price rise". He did not say that there will be a considerable drop in the price of gas. He merely said, "At least there will not be a price rise". We say that the consumers, on whose behalf we are speaking, will not gain very much from the conversion or change­over from coal gas to natural gas or, in the case of Townsville, to liquefied petroleum gas.

It appears to me that the only advantage­if in fact any advantage is to be gained by this change-over-will be gained by the com­pany, as obviously little advantage is to be gained by the consumers. If we were shown that the consumers would gain the advantage of a considerable reduction in price, we could well say that it is reasonable that they should bear some of the cost. However, on the infor­mation the Minister gave us there is to be no immediate reduction in the price of gas, although there could be a reduction at some future time.

Apparently any advantage gained is to flow to the companies. That is our reason for opposing the specific clauses today. Before the Opposition can accept the amendments outlined by the Minister, all the details must be placed before us so that we may evaluate them. Surely it is reasonable to expect that before a Minister of the Crown-who is responsible to the people-introduces such amendments, he should be certain that all costs have been placed before his department. That is not unreasonable. If the Minister evaluated what was put before him, or put before his officers-a least he would have a precis put before him by his officers-before introducing this legislation, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that all the details should be placed before Parliament so that we can evaluate them. The Opposition is entitled to know the figures, which must have been placed before the Minister or his depart­ment. The Minister has a responsibility to protect the ordinary people in the State. Surely he does not represent the business interests in the State, although I am not making any accusations in that regard. Surely the Minister, in a responsible way, asked for details to establish the need for this legisla­tion, details of why the costs should be borne by the community and what they would be.

As I said at the introductory stage, Charters Towers has been converted to L.P. gas and, if Townsville is not already completely con­verted, it will be in the next few weeks. Those towns provide a golden opportunity for estab­lishing the cost of converting home appli­ances from one type of gas to another. They must have been worked out by the company concerned and handed to the Minister or his department.

If anybody is guilty of forcing the Opposi­tion to oppose the Bill, it is the Minister because he has withheld this information from Parliament. There may be a very good reason for his doing so, but at the introduc­tory stage I pointed out certain things that had happened in the North and stated my reasons for believing that the necessary information should be given to us. I asked the Minister to provide the details today, but he gave us only a five-minute speech, contain­ing none of the details of cost and none of the reasons for what is being done. If the Minister is not prepared to give us these details or to show us these things so that we can evaluate the matter, we are not prepared to co-operate in this regard.

First and foremost, we want to protect the interests of the ordinary people of this State-the consumers. If any advantages are to flow, they should flow to them. We want to know what the company will pay for natural gas and the cost of conversion. There are technical officers within the department who could give the Minister this information, and if he gave it to us we could look at the matter and then, if we felt it was right and correct, we would not be speaking in the vein that we are today. But because these facts have been withheld the Opposition will oppose the clauses in question.

Gas Acts (8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1499

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (12.11 p.m.): The main thing wrong with this Bill is that it purports to amend the Gas Act whereas it should be amending the gas companies Act. Had the gas companies themselves drawn up the legislation they could not have done a better job in their own interests. I have always regarded with considerable suspicion and scepticism any amendment to the Gas Act of Queensland as it operates in this State today and as it is written on the Statute Book. I shall not go through the history of the Act.

One clause of the Biii deals with appeals against the decisions of the Gas Referee. For many years in Townsville-and the pages of "Hansard" are thick with my speeches on this matter-we had perhaps the most shocking gas supply in the Commonwealth. The pipes under the ground were rotten and, because of leaking gas, Townsville could be smelt miles away.

I shall not pull any punches on this. Almost every year the Chief Gas Examiner and Gas Referee would come to Townsville and almost in secret would meet the rep­resentatives of the old Townsville gas com­pany and agree on the price of gas. On one occasion I discovered that the Gas Referee was coming to Townsville to meet the gas companies in a room at the court­house. I went along on that day and at that time to have my say on behalf of the people I represent only to find that the Gas Referee and the gas company representatives had met prior to that time and had ducked away somewhere, probably to have a couple of beers or morning tea. Again as a result of that visit there was another big increase in the price of gas.

I could get no redress whatever from the Labour Party when it was in power. When this Government came to office I asked a question of the then Minister for Mines, the late Ernie Evans-it is recorded in "Hansard" -as to why it was, if I remember the figures correctly-! am speaking from memory but it is usually pretty retentive-that Townsville people were paying 48s. a thousand cubic feet for gas while the South Brisbane Gas and Light Co. Ltd. were selling gas for 16s. a thousand cubic feet. The Minister then got to work on the matter. We had some measure of success, so much so that the old Towns­ville gas company had to sell to the new Townsville gas company. Had it not been forced to seli it would have gone on, with the full connivance and support of the Chief Gas Examiner and Gas Referee, jacking up the price of gas in Townsville until the people could not have afforded to have gas in their homes.

The new company took over. It found the task of replacing the worn-out, pitted and rusted mains above its capability. But it did what it possibly could and kept the price of gas static. At least that is something to its credit. It gave good service to the con­sumers. Lately, we discovered that it had decided to increase the price of gas-and it

was increased-and to institute a $1.50 minimum charge per month for the supply of gas.

There are many pensioners in Townsville. Why should they be compelled to pay a minimum charge of $1.50 a month when their usual gas bill is about 40c or 50c? The Minister put that question to the Gas Referee or some other bureaucrat and the reply was almost as anaemic as the one given to me today by the Minister for Transport following my question concern­ing drive-yourself cars. I know that a Federal Minister is at present on the mat for supplying Parliament with incorrect information. I think it is about time we put some of our Ministers on the mat for giving evasive replies. I know that you are not responsible for them, Mr. Speaker, and in anything you say you are at least forthright and we know what you mean.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I have the responsibility of keeping hon. members such as the hon. member for Townsville South on the right track in dealing with Bills. I have given him a fair amount of latitude, and I now ask him to confine his remarks to the principles of the Bill before the House, which deals with the supply of natural gas.

Mr. AIKENS: Again you and I find ourselves at variance, Mr. Speaker. I respect your opinion, and I know that you have studied the Bill to the best of your ability, just as I have studied it to the best of mine.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! member now proceed to business of the House?

Will the hon. deal with the

Mr. AIKENS: I find from a certain section of the Bill that it applies to any supplier of gas, whether it be natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, or ordinary coal gas.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mem­ber is making the type of speech that should be made at the introductory stage; he is not dealing with the principles of the Bill but is making a speech on very wide matters. I have given him a fair amount of latitude to make his point. He has made it, and I now ask him to continue with the business before the House.

Mr. AIKENS: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with a principle of the Bill­if a clause is a principle.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The clauses will be dealt with at the Committee stage.

Mr. AIKENS: A principle of the Bill deals with appeals against decisions of the Gas Referee. I say without any equivocation or ambiguity that if the Gas Referee acts, within the provisions of the Bill, as he has acted in the past in Townsville, the Bill is absolutely worthless. There wiii be no need for the gas companies to appeal to the Industrial Court because the Gas

1500 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Rcfer~e will give them everything they want. l can find no provision in the Bill under which the ordinary people can appeal against a price determination. The point I make is that, if the Gas Referee and the Govern­ment continue in the future to act as they have in the past, by meeting representatives of gas companies in &ecret and without the presence of any representatives of the people to present their case, the Bill is worthless. The Minister knows it is worthless, and that there will never be any need for gas com­panies to appeal because there will be nothing for them to appeal against. Gas companies merely have to ask the Gas Referee for whatever they want and they will get it without argument or demur.

Why should there be in the Bill a right of appeal against decisions of the Gas Referee for gas companies, but no similar provision for the ordinary battler? There is no provision for this sovereign Parliament, which is the only law-making authority in this State, to do anything about the decisions ot the Gas Referee. There is nothing in the Bill to say that Parliament can alter any decision of the Gas Referee or the Industrial Court if a gas company went through the sham fighting tactics and shadow­sparring of appealing against a decision of the Ga<; Referee.

So far as I am concerned, the Bill stinks just as Townsville stank from leaking gas mains when the former gas company was operating, and I will see the Minister and the Government in hell before I support it.

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (12.20 p.m.), in reply: I have been accused of having been a little bit too brief in my second-reading speech on this Bill. The Bill contains very few clauses, and members of the Opposition have had it in their hands for about nine days. I thought that would have given them adequate time to study the amendments con­tained in it.

I have been accused, too, of adopting a cavalier attitude in moving the second reading of the Bill. I suppose I could have elaborated more than I did, but do members of the Opposition think I should come into this Chamber with detailed information on all aspects of a Bill? If they really believe that I should, the next time I bring down a Bill I will take two hours to introduce it.

Mr. Dnggan: I think, perhaps, that was a sporting phrase used because of the photo­graph appearing in the Press showing the sartorial elegance of the Treasurer at the Melbourne Cup meeting.

Mr. CAMM: There is no need for the hon. member to exhibit his jealousy in the House because the Treasurer attended the Melbourne Cup meeting.

The hon. member for Salisbury, in referring to coal gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and natural gas, exhibited such a lack of know­ledge of the differences between them that I

think it would be useless for me to reply to all of his comments. He said that the exist­ing fertiliser companies can meet the demand for fertiliser in this State. As a practical farmer I use a great deal of fertiliser, and I can tell the hon. member that I am still using some imported fertiliser. The hon. member certainly did not know what he was talking about when he said that.

I cannot understand why the hon. member should claim that the rentals of Housing Commission houses will be increased as a result of the use of natural gas in domestic appliances.

Mr. Melloy: It will not make any differ­ence, but the Government will use any excuse at all to increase rentals.

Mr. CAMM: Does the hon. member believe that those companies that intend to convert the burners in existing appliances should not be allowed to recover the cost of conversion?

Mr. Houston: They are going to do it of their own volition; they are not being forced to change.

Mr. CAMM: No, but they believe that the introduction of natural gas will ultimately be to the benefit of the consumers.

The hon. member for Townsville North said that Queensland should profit from the experience of southern States in this respect. I point out to him that no conversion has yet taken place in the South. Queensland is pioneering the introduction of natural gas for use by domestic consumers. If hon. members opposite do not think there is any benefit to be derived from the use of natural gas, why is natural gas sweeping coal gas and liquefied petroleum gas from the field in the United States of America?

Mr. Duggan: You are only bolstering up Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. You are making the consumers pay for your propa­ganda in regard to that company.

Mr. Dewar: That is a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Duggan: It is true.

Mr. CAMM: At the moment, the cost of reticulating gas and all other costs incurred by the gas companies are taken into consider­ation in fixing the price to the consumer. Naturally, therefore, any further increased costs should also be taken into consideration. At the same time, the companies must be allowed to write off the obsolete equipment on which they have spent money in earlier years. I think it was the hon. member for Townsville North who said that the Govern­ment should have seen this change coming and allowed the gas companies to build up their reserves in order to pay for the conver­sion themselves. Had that happened, they would have built up their reserves at the expense of present and past consumers.

Mr. Houston: Why?

Gas Acts [8 NovEMBER] Amendment Bill 1501

Mr. CAMM: That is the only way they could build up reserves. Is the hon. gentle­man trying to tell the Government that it should have allowed the gas ~ompanies to build up their reserves by fixing such a price for gas supplied to the consumers over the last four or five years that they would now have $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 in reserve?

Mr. Houston: You do not know what the conversion will cost.

Mr. CAM!'Ivf: The exact figure is not known, but the cost of conversion will be taken into consideration in fixing the price that the com­panies may charge for gas.

Mr. Houston: How much is it going to be?

Mr. CAMM: vVe are not sure of the price.

Mr. Houston: You come into the Chamber, you give us a Bill, you ask us to support you, yet you do not know one fact at all; not one fact can you tell us.

Mr. CAMM: I said at the introductory stage that the conversion would be on a zonal basis. If someone says, "You have coal gas today and you will have natural gas tomorrow," the cost of conversion will depend on the speed at which the company can convert its appliances. We know what an individual burner will cost.

!VIr. Houston: How much?

Mr. CAM!W: I do not keep those fiddling details in my mind. What does the hon. gentleman expect me to know?

Mr. Houston: I expect you to know your Bill.

Mr. CAJ\'IM: The hon. member for Salis­bury is always recognised here as one of the greatest "knockers" of the State's expan­sion and development.

Mr. Aikens: Tell us why the consumer has not the right of appeal.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. CAMM: I am asked to intercede on behalf of the consumers. The Minister him­self looks after the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Aikens: Nonsense. You may do it, but what about the next Minister?

Mr. CAMM: The consumers can appeal to the Minister.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members on my left have kept up a continual barrage of interjections while the Minister has been on his feet. If one more of them interjects I will deal with him very readily under the provisions of Standing Order 123A.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to request the Minister to refrain from engaging in personalities.

48

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If anyone should be condemned for engaging in personalities in this Chamber, it is the hon. member who just rose on a point of order.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: In what respect?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member to resume his seat.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am not going to "cop" these personal attacks on me; I tell you that now.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! On three occasions this morning I was on the verge of rising to draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order 120, under the provisions of which disparaging remarks by one hon. member against another will not be tolerated. I warn the hon. member now that there has been a prevalence on his part to use this type of language in the House, and it will not be tolerated.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I object to that most strongly. I have always used parliamentary language in this House. I resent personal attacks.

Mr. SPEAKER: I warn the hon. member and ask him to read some of his speeches. If he comes to my office and talks the matter over, I can show him where he is wrong.

Mr. TUCKER: I rise to a point of order. If you do not deal with it at the time, can it be cumulative? Can you continue to carry this on?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Townsville North has already been informed that I can show the hon. member for Salisbury that he is wrong.

Mr. Duggan: It should not be dealt with now; it should have been dealt with at the time.

Mr. Aikens: Now that that has been finished, I ask the Minister why he has arrogated to himself a right of appeal on behalf of the consumers.

Mr. CAMM: It is in the Act.

Mr. Aikens: Why not give the consumer a direct right of appeal? Why should the consumers have to rely on the Minister's good graces?

Mr. CAMM: Does the hon. member fo1 Townsville South want a consumer's right of appeal to the Industrial Court incorporated in the Bill? Does the hon. member want me to give him the assurance that the consumers have a right of appeal? Is that what he is worrying about?

Mr. Aikens: No. I want you to give them a direct right of appeal.

Mr. CAMM: Previously there was no right of appeal against a decision of the Gas Referee. This right is being incorporated in the Bill. The right of appeal is only in respect

1502 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

of the price to be charged for gas. Does the hon. member want the consumers to get together and consult a solicitor?

Mr. Aikens: Why not?

Mr. CAMM: Let them come to the Govern­ment or to the Minister and say they desire to appeal against the price fixed by the Gas Referee.

Mr. Aikens: What if the Minister says, "No"?

Mr. CAMM: We do not say, "No." We intervene on their behalf. There was no right of appeal in the previous Act, but we are inwrporating a right of appeal in this Bill because we realise the problems associated with the cost structures involved in the con­version to natural gas. We think we should give the companies a right of appeal against the decision of the Gas Referee only in respect of price.

As I said earlier, we are pioneering in this undertaking. I believe that the taking into consideration of the cost of the con­version to natural gas in arriving at the price of gas is the only way we can encourage any company to introduce natural gas into Brisbane. The hon. member for Salisbury spoke about writing off the cost in five years or 10 years. He said something about its being more convenient to the consumer to write it off in five years. If we wrote it off in five years, does he not realise that the cost would be higher to the consumer than if the period was extended to 10 years?

The hon. member suggested that the right of appeal indicated a lack of faith in the Gas Referee. I have every faith in the Gas Referee and Chief Gas Examiner, who fixes the price of gas to the consumer. The Gas Referee and the relevant Minister should be the people to look after the interests of the consumers.

Mr. AikellS: You think you are immortal and that everybody else is immoral.

Mr. CAMM: No. The hon. member for Townsville South was on the same theme when he said, "Why should the companies be allowed to recoup the cost of conversion?" Surely it is only a normal business principle that any company that incurs expenditure in this way must be allowed to recoup the cost of the conversion.

Mr. Duggan: Why did this not apply to the electricity people when they changed over from D.C. to A.C. current?

Mr. CAMM: about electricity.

Mr. Duggan:

I do not know anything Did they have a franchise?

Yes.

Mr. CAMM: The hon. member knows how gas companies operate. They have a complete franchise to supply gas to their consumers. The whole of their costs are taken into consideration. Generation costs reticulation costs and all other costs ar~

examined by the Gas Referee before the price is fixed. The companies are not allowed to pay dividends in excess of 3 per cent. over the current Commonwealth bond rate. They have to be allowed a certain mea5ure of profit, otherwise no-one would invest in a gas company. How could a company be formed unless potential investors in it could be assured of some measure of profit?

Mr. Tucker: Why shouldn't the investors bear some of these costs?

Mr. CAMM: The investors will, in effect.

Mr. Tucker: How?

Mr. CAJ\1M: Who will be supplying the money in the first place-the $1,000,000 or $2,000,000, v,·hatever it might be?

Mr. Houston: You haven't a clue bow much it will be.

Mr. CAMM: Neither has the hon. gentle­man.

Mr. Houston: It will not be $1,000,000, or $2,000,000 either.

Mr. CAl'viJVl:: It depends upon how many convert and over what period. I could say that the total cost of conversion at South Brisbane will be $2,000,000. Could the hon. gentleman question that figure?

Mr. Houston: Yes.

Mr. CAMM: Hon. mem"ers opposite could not question any figure that I liked to present.

Mr. Dnggan: Before they determined to make this change, wouldn't the gas com­panies make an economic analysis?

Mr. CAJVIM: Yes. It all depends on the period over which the conversion takes place.

Mr. Houston: Did they suggest any-thing to you as to what the costs would be over any period? When they came to you, did they give you any facts and figures at all?

!VIr. CA:M:l\11: Yes. Mr. Houston: \Vhat were they?

Mr. CAMM: They gave the Department of Mines certain estimates of cost over a period.

Mr. Houston: Would you mind telling this Parliament what they were?

Mr. CAMM: I at my finger-tips.

Mr. Duggan: be in "Hansard",

Mr. CAMM: detailed figures. conversion there period.

Mr. Houston:

have not that information

That information should not at your finger-tips.

It is impossible to give No-one knows how much will be over a particular

We should know that.

Gas Acts (8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1503

Mr. CAMM: The hon. gentleman ought to know himself that it is impossible to give exact figures.

Mr. Houston: It is a blank cheque that you are asking for.

Mr. CAM:l\-1: No. The cost of con-version will be taken into consideration by the Gas Referee when he fixes the price. He will make the final determination on the cost of natural gas. As I said earlier, we 2re pioneering in this under­taking. At the present time I do not think anyone can give an exact figure of what it will cost.

Some hon. members opposite said there will be no advantages in this for the ordinary consumers. There must be advantages, because over the years, wherever natural gas has been found there has been a gradual conversion to its exclusive use.

Mr. P. Wood: What are the advantages?

Mr. CAMM: It is a cleaner and hotter gas for the consumers.

Mr. Sherrington: Who cares if it is a hotter gas? We want cheaper gas.

Mr. C1-\JVIM: The hon. member for T ownsville South referred to the previous Townsville gas company. I indicated in my introductory speech that there was a con­siderable leakage of gas in Townsville, amounting to some 40 per cent., when that company was in operation. That is why the gas could be smelt.

Mr. Aikeru;: We were paying for it.

1\'Ir. CAMM: Yes, because the cost of generating that gas was taken into considera­tion in fixing the price. No-one could assess exactly how much was being lost or locate where it was being lost. Upon the major (Onversion to L.P.G. in Townsville there w::ts a reduction in the price.

l\1r. Aikens: It was an Irishman's reduction; the price rose.

l\l!r. CAlV.l:M: No, it did not. I think the hon. member for Townsville North will bear me out that there was a reduction in the price. There was also a reduction at Charters Towers when L.P.G. was introduced.

There will be competition between L.P.G. and coal gas. Even a franchise-holder will have to withstand some measure of com­petition from L.P.G., and he will also have to withstand competition from electricity. That competition in itself will tend to level out the price charged for this commodity, and there will also be the Gas Referee's assessment of the price to be charged.

Mr. Houston: In Housing Commission homes the Government does not give the tenants a choice of electricity or gas. It puts in gas and tells the tenants they have to take it.

Mr. CAMM: I am talking about price. There will be a measure of competition between the gas companies and electricity undertakings, and that will have an effect on the price of gas.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr. Camm's motion}-put; and the House divided-

AYES, 34 Armstrong Bielke-Petersen Camm Carey Chinchen Cory Dewar Fletcher Herbert Hewitt. N. T. E. Hewitt, W. D. Hedges Hooper Houghton Hughes Jones. V. E. Kaus Lie kiss Lonergan

Aikens Bennett Donald Duggan Grahan• Hanlon Hanson Houston Inch Jordan Uoyd M ann Melloy

Pizzey Low Delamotho Ramsden Hinze Beardmore

NoEs, 22

PAIRS

Resolved in the affirmative.

COMMITTEE

McKechnie Miller Muller Newbery Nicklin Pi! beam Rae Richter Row Tomkins Tooth Wharton Wood, E. G. W.

Tellers:

Lee Sullivan

Newton O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker Wa!sh Wood, P.

Tellers:

Bromley Jones. R.

Davies Byrne Dean Wallis-Smith Dufficy Harris

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

Clauses 1 to 4, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 5-Amendments to s. 43; Charge related to assets-

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (12.47 p.m.): It was the original intention of the Opposition merely to oppose clauses 5 and 8, but because we have witnessed one of the most shameful exhibitions ever in the presentation of a Bill, we decided, because of the paucity of the information made available to us, to oppose the Bill at the second-reading stage. The Minister's exhibi­tion in making a personal attack on me because, as a responsible member of Her Majesty's Opposition, I demanded on behalf of the Opposition some facts and figures pertinent to the Bill indicated to me that ,the Minister had either come here badly prepared or that he lacks the capacity to place the facts before Parliament.

Let us look at some of his statements in reply to points raised by the Opposition. I believe that we have every right to know the

1504 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

estimated cost of conversion of gas appliances. All that the Minister could say in reply to interjections was that he did not have the figures at hand, and that he could not give them exactly. Surely Parliament is entitled at least to an estimate of the cost of con­version, which will have an effect on the price of gas.

When Opposition members virtually had to pump the Minister for information on why it was felt that the consumer should bear the whole cost of conversion, he made one of the most amazing statements I have ever heard from a responsible Minister when he said that the investors were bearing this cost because they supplied the money in the first place. He did not say that that cost would eventually be recouped. It is ludicrous to suggest that, merely because the investors supplied money in the first instance, they are bearing part of the cost.

The Minister spoke in vague generali­ties about the amendments proposed to section 43 of the Act, which deals with the effect that the obsolete equipment will have on the price of gas. He said, "Surely the Opposition does not believe that the companies should bear the cost of this con­version?" Surely he is not asking members of the Opposition to agree to the principle that the consumer must bear the whole cost of that replacement?

Vague and indefinite references of that type by the Minister, and the lack of know­ledge that he has displayed on important principles of the Bill, have led the Opposition to decide to oppose not only the second reading of the Bill but also the clauses now under discussion.

Let me turn to the amendments proposed to section 43 of the Act. At the intro­ductory stage, the Minister gave this as one of the reasons for amending the section-

"Legal opinion is that under the present Act the expenses incurred in the change­over, that is, conversion costs plus book value of discarded equipment, must be recouped in the financial year in which they were incurred."

Again one sees this vague, indefinite principle applying in the part of the clause that says-

"When for the purpose of calculating a price or prices of gas to be charged in a financial year a gas supplier would be required by the foregoing provisions of this subsection to deduct the whole of expenses incurred or to be incurred by it in that financial year the gas sup­plier may, in lieu of deducting the whole of those expenses, deduct such part thereof as is reasonable having regard to honest and prudent business practice . . ."

Surely the Opposition is not asked to accept such a vague and indefinite statement in a clause of a Bill as "having regard to honest and prudent business practice?" In effect, the consumer will be called upon

to meet the total cost that the company will incur in the change-over to the use of natural gas.

As I said in my speech on the second reading, surely members of the Opposition are not going to be asked to accept that there will not be any statutory period in which the company will be required to amortise the loan for the conversion? Surely they are not going to be asked to accept that, because of this so-called prudent busi­ness practice, it may be 10, 15 or 25 years before the consumers can hope to gain any reasonable benefit from the use of natural gas in commercial and domestic appliances?

As I said earlier, it could be shrewd and prudent business practice for a com­pany to write that cost off over a very long period. If it did that, it would be many years before there was any reduction in the price of gas used in commercial and domestic appliances in Queensland. The Minister merely said, "The consumer will get some benefit". When pushed by hon. members on this side of the Chamber as to what it was, he said, "It is hotter gas and better gas". In my opinion, the only benefit to the consumer should be in the form of cheaper gas. Who cares whether it is hotter and better gas? The salient point of the discovery of natural gas is the possibility of reducing the price of gas to the consumers.

I repeat: the clause is vague and indefinite; it gives no indication of the period over which the company should write off its costs. If the Minister really wanted to ensure that the benefits derived from natural gas flowed to the consumers he could have provided for a long-term amortisation of this cost, which could have resulted immediately in a reduction of the price of gas to the consumer. If this clause had indicated that the gas company would be allowed to write off its debt-not particularly the expenses incurred in one year--over a number of years, which would have resulted in an immediate decrease in the price of gas, then that would have been a good reason for not opposing it.

But again the Minister, in his vague and indefinite way, gave hon. members no information. Indeed, he had the temerity to say, when we charged him with treating this Bill in a cavalier fashion, "All right, I will punish your ears next time I introduce a Bill. I will keep you here for two hours." The Opposition would rather be here for two hours. Indeed, the Opposition will sit here all night to get the full and detailed facts so that it might make a keen and shrewd assessment of the contents of the Bill. I am not at all impressed by the Minister's threats to bore the Opposition to tears next time he introduces a Bill. The obligation is on the Minister to present to Parliament all the facts in support of a Bill. That applies particularly to this clause, which will affect the price of gas. [Sitting susbended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.l

Gas Acts (8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1505

Mr. DEWAR (Wavell) (2.15 p.m.): I seek to occupy the time of the Committee for only a few minutes. My speaking at this stage has been motivated by some of the comments made in speeches and by way of interjection during the second-reading debate and in the debate on this clause.

The hon. member for Toowoomba West said by interjection that the Bill was just a cover-up to counter the publicity given to the fertiliser works. I do not know what motivated that thought but let me say now, as I did during the passage of the Bill ratifying the deal with Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd., that but for the fertiliser works, now assumed to be an accomplished fact in this city, based on natural gas, natural gas would never have left the ground at Roma. But for the development of that fertiliser works the natural gas would have remained in the ground and its advantages would have been denied to smaller industrial and domestic users. Let there be no doubt about that. But for the fertiliser works in respect of which legislation was recently introduced we would never have had natural gas in this city.

The same hon. member by interjection on the Minister referred to the fact that when there was a change-over in electricity there was no increase in price. J do not know anything the Minister said that would indicate that there will be an increase in the price of natural gas. However, I will leave that point aside. The hon. member's inter­jection completely belies the known facts that when there is a change in electricity as he indicated, from D.C. to A.C., what i~ normal is to go from inadequate stations to bigger stations using larger megawattage­output sets, and in so doL'1g the production cost per unit of electricity is reduced. Over the. !as~ 20 years ~n. this State the average umt pnce of _electriCity has increased by 34 per cent. agamst known increases in wage structure and for ancillary activities of just over 300 per cent. Let me repeat that when there are change-overs in electricity the average cost per unit of power produced is lessened, and that is why there is no increase in price to the consumer. I am not suggesting that there will be an increase in the price of gas.

The hon. member for Salisbury, following a comment by the Minister that this will be a cleaner and hotter gas, said "Who cares if it is hotter gas? We want 'cheaper gas." I do not know whether he made that com­ment off the back of his head without aivina any thought to it-- "' "'

Mr. Sherrington: Don't you start getting personal or I'll get personal with you.

Mr. DEWAR: I am not being personal on this at all. Let me detail the cold facts of the matter. The Minister has said that natural gas is a hotter gas. That is so. This gas will have a minimum calorific value of 1,000 B.T.U.'s per cubic foot. Because it has a much higher calorific value than coal

gas or, for that matter, tail gases from the refineries, less gas will be needed to produce the same amount of heat in a kitchen. Obviously if it is a hotter gas-this is accepted-at the end of the two-monthly period the housewife will have less to pay on her gas bill because she will have used fewer units of this gas of higher calorific value. That naturally follows.

We have been asked, "Why would the gas companies change from coal gas if there is no advantage to them in so doing?" I think the Government's desire to establish the fertiliser complex in the State is fairly evident. Its establishment permitted the gas companies to use natural gas, with all the ancillary benefits that will flow therefrom, and the gas companies, being good, loyal Queensland companies, wanted to go along with these changes.

Let me get down to the basic facts. First, the gas companies have been operating on coal. One very salient point relative to the economic structure of the gas companies was that after the advent of the oil refineries in Brisbane they were cut off from their outlets for tar and other by-products which they had been producing as a result of using coal for gas production. It was obvious that with the production of these by-products by the other sources of supply the price of coal gas would increase immeasurably because of their inability, in the face of this alternative supply from the oil companies, to sell these by-products.

That is one very good reason why the gas companies would want to shift from the use of coal to the burning of oil and the making of their own gas, or to the use of natural gas. To my mind, their main reason is that the use of natural gas will stabilise prices for a long time. It should be obvious to all that the cost of operating a pump to control the flow of gas at the pit-head or the well-head will not increase with every change in the price structure. This must be considered in the light of all the factors involved in the mining and cartage of coal. Costs in this regard will obviously increase and the price of coal will necessarily rise as the years go by.

I am talking now from a common-sense point of view. I have had no direct part in the discussions with the gas companies on this matter as it lay squarely within the province of the Department of Mines. I am speaking from information that I garnered through my general activities. It was obvious to me that the gas companies had to change to an alternative type of basic fuel or be unable to compete with electri­city-to the extent that they can compete today.

Amortisation is not only sound business practice, but is also quite normal practice. The Minister assures me that amortisation will be undertaken in a prudent manner, over a long period. Therefore, there will

1506 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

be a resultant benefit from the long period of amortisation of the cost of conversion to the new type of burner.

As I see it, the use of natural gas domestically in this city will provide a cleaner, sweeter and hotter gas for the consumer. Over the years it must become cheaper because less gas will be used to generate the same heat. It will also provide stability, because there will be fewer factors to mitigate against the price with the full use of natural gas as against the use of gas produced from coal.

The other benefit that I can see is an ancillary benefit that is derived as a result of natural gas being brought to Brisbane consequent upon the establishment of the fertiliser complex. Other smaller types of industry will change over to natural gas, and this will build up the economy of the area aLc.l must create more job opportuni­ties, from which the housewife benefits in the long term. I cannot see any basis for the arguments that I have heard in opposi­tion to this measure.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsvi!le North) (2.25 p.m.): It seems to us in the Opposition that it would be far better if the hon. member for Wavell had guided this Bill through this Chamber. Without doubt, he has expressed better reasons for its introduction than we have previously heard.

If in Townsville we are to get cheaper gas by using natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, which is now being used, that fact has not evidenced itself yet. Most of us find that our bills have increased a little; they have not decreased. However I am not here to argue that point.

The hon. member for Wavell said that this would stabilise the industry. If it does, it is a wise measure. In the last year or so we have developed new ideas on the extraction of coking coal, and those ideas are evident inland from Gladstone, at Blackwater, and many other places. We are now able to pro­duce coal much more cheaply and in much larger quantities than previously. Therefore, the argument of the hon. member for Wavell that if we continued to produce gas from coal there would certainly be a rise in the price does not hold water. I acknowledge that he would have some basis for arguing that if we use natural gas there will be a certain amount of stability in the industry.

Mr. Dewar: Don't forget that there is a vast difference between the basic prices of locally produced coal and Collinsville or Central Queensland coal.

Mr. TUCKER: Let us get the record straigbt. We do not argue whether this should come in or whether we should throw it out, or whether we should keep coal gas or con­vert to liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas. The nucleus of our argument is that we have asked the Minister to let us have, in precis form, his argument in support of this legisla­tion. and I continue to make that point. As

yet, that information has not been supplied. We have asked for it in a legitimate, sensible and responsible way. I asked for this infor­mation when the Minister introduced the Bill. That was not an unreasonable request and it was not asked in an irresponsible way. The Minister endeavoured to twist our attack and say that it was an attack upon the gas com­pany concerned. That is completely wrong.

Mr. Camm: I did not say that.

Mr. TUCKER: The Minister did say that, and many other Government members have claimed that it was an attack on the gas companies. In my earlier remarks I was forced to say that this was not an attack on any gas company. In all my dealings with the gas company in Townsville, I have found it to be a decent and responsible company. But it has only been in recent years that the managers of this company have adopted a refreshing attitude. I refer particularly to Mr. Alf Homewood, who improved the com­pany in a particularly efficient way.

I repeat that this is not an attack on any gas company. We ask the Minister to give us his basis for the introduction of this legis­lation. It is not wrong for us to ask for that. It is certainly our business to know. It is the Opposition's business to ask and seek out this information. We would be a milk­and-water Opposition if we accepted every proposal introduced by the Government with­out asking questions about it.

Mr. Sherrington: We have a right to know.

Mr. TUCKER: We have a right to know, and a right to have this information. If it is right and correct we will most assuredly be the first to say so.

There is also the question of discarded equipment. We have asked questions about it, but have received no answers. Is it intended to use the present methods of reticulation in Brisbane or is another method to be used, such as the provision of a reservoir at each home, as is done at Townsville? lf domestic reservoirs are to be used, the pipes will be discarded.

I notice the Minister shaking his head. Why did he not give us this information before? Will the existing pipes be able to withstand the pressure of natural gas, if in fact it does exert a significant pressure? Will gas meters still be used? In Towns­ville they are no longer in use; the quantity of gas is measured when being conveyed from the truck to the reservoir, and the consumer is charged accordingly. Those are things that we feel that we are entitled to know.

Will there be a lowering of the over­head costs of the gas company? If some equipment has to be discarded, we acknow­ledge that, in accordance with business prac­tice, it will have to be written off over a period of time. Will it still be necessary to have staff maintaining meters? We do not know these things and we were not told

Gas Acts (8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1507

about them, so we must continue to ask. If overhead costs do decrease, what effect will that have on the company?

I again repeat that the company must know the average cost of conversion as it has had a city and a town in which to experiment, and over a year. to do. it. I believe that the company IS efficient enough to know that cost, or at least what it approximates, and that that information must have already been made available to the Government. If it has not, I ask the Minister why it has not. I consider that the Minister would be falling down on his job if he did not ask the company for that information. Although I may be incor­rect, I was under the impression that the cost of conversion in Townsville was borne entirely by the company. If that is so. why should that not be the position here?

Those are all pertinent questions. I think theJ· are reasonable, and that we are respon­sible in pressing them. Even if it is neces­'ary to remain here for the rest of the day, we will continue to press the Minister till we are given the answers. We must be given these figures before we will be able to say that everything in the clause is in order. Until that happens, we will con­tinue to oppose it.

Mr. HANSON (Port Curtis) (2.33 p.m.): 1 am fully in acconl with the remarks on the clause by other Opposition members. Like the hon. member for Wavell, I also noted the rather pertinent interjection of the hon. memb~r for Toowoomba West before the luncheon adjournment.

The conditions under which natura! gas is to be supplied to Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. will have a considerable bearing on the price at which it is ullimately available to the ordinary consumer. I think it is gen­erally recognised in the commercial world that gas suppliers endeavour to maximise their return by offering low rates on con­tract conditions to potentially large con­sumers, whilst, because of delivery costs and the smaller amount used, the domestic rate is somewhat higher.

f quite agree that but for Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. the pipeline to bring natural gas to Brisbane may not have been built. However, the price that that company is being charged for the gas is pertinent to the question now under consideration. Hon. members are entitled to know from the Minister what price is being charged to that very large consumer. It is necessary for the Committee to know that, because it will have a considerable bearing on the price that will be charged to the ordinary consumer, in whom hon. members on this side of the Chamber are particularly interested.

It is worthy of note that in "The Aus­tralian Financial Review" of 8 September, 1967, an article was published in which reference was made to Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. It said-

"The price has not been disclosed, but Austral-Pacific claims that it will be cheap

enough to give the company a useful cost advantage over competitors using liquid feedstock."

The company must have had some idea of the approximate cost of gas at that stage, and I assert that it wonld probably have known the actual cost subsequent to that date because it is vitally interested in endeavouring to bring into the consortium large overseas com­panies such as Chase International Investment Corporation and Sumitomo of Japan. Its success or otherwise will be very important to other consumers who may require large quantities of natural gas. Although Austral­Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. has priority of supply to a certain extent, the price charged to ot~er large consumers would have a direct beanng on ,_the price at which gas would be available to ordinary consumers.

1 noted that the Deputy Leader o{ the Opposition referred a short time ago to certain expenditure by the particular co.m­panies concerned for the purpose of assessmg the price of natural gas. It seems that millions of dollars will be needed to meet the cost of conversion, and it is pertinent to note that that money will have to be borrowed. !n direct contrast to what has happened in North America and Europe, it seems that the pipelines in Australia will be under private own.c.rship, not public ownership. As a result. public companies will have to go onto the debenture market and compete for money with other companies wishing to undertake comparable projects that are worthy of con­sideration. Will the high interest rate on debentures be taken into consideration in assessing the cost of natural gas to the consumers? I agree with other Opposition members that there is need for an explana­tion on that point. It is the hip-pocket nerve that the consumers are worried aoout, and hen. members on this side of the Chamber are very close to the thoughts of the ordinary reople in the community.

H is rather interesting to note, too, relative to the a'sessing of prices-! have mentioned t~is before----that section 4 (b) (2) of the Natural Gas Act in the U.S.A. says that it is imperative that there shall not be main­tained any unreasonable difference in rates, charges. service, facilities, or in any other rC'snect either as between localities or as bet\vee~ classes of service. If a sound principle is adopted in this State, there should not be any great discrepancy between the price paid by the large contractor using natural gas and that paid by the ordinary consumer, to whom the cost is of great importance in the raising of his family and the fulfilling of his ordinary respomibilities and duties.

Section 6 of the American Act is headed, "Ascertainment of cost of property", and section 6 (a) says-

"The Commission may investigate and ascertain the actual legitimate cost of the property of every natural-gas company, the depreciation therein, and, when found necessary for rate-making purposes, other

1508 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

facts which bear on the determination of such cost or depreciation and the fair value of such property."

This has to be taken into consideration when assessing the price that will be charged to the public.

Subsection (b) says-"Every natural-gas company upon

request shall file with the Commission an inventory of all or any part of its property and a statement of the original cost thereof, and shall keep the Commission informed regarding the cost of all additions, better­ments, extensions, and new construction."

Notice should be taken of what has happened in other parts of the world where com­missions have been operating for many years, as the facility of natural gas will be pro­vided for the benefit of the people and certainly at no great cost to them.

An atmosphere of suspicion surrounds this Bill, and the remarks of the hon. member for Toowoomba West are most pertinent to the ensuring of no infliction by the large users of natural gas upon the natural-gas company with resultant bargaining to such a high degree that the cost of many of the improve­ments and conversion to natural gas will be borne by the householder.

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday­Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (2.42 p.m.): At present the Committee is debating clause 5, which provides a method by which the gas company can recoup the cost of conversion to natural gas. That is all it provides. Legal opinion is that under the present Act the company would have to recoup all the costs of conversion, and, in addition, write off all obsolete equipment, in one year. This amendment enables the com­pany to write off those costs over a number of years. If what are known as prudent business practices are used, that period can be extended to anything from 10 to 20 years. It is quite obvious that if the period is 10 years the payment by the consumers must be relatively high, whereas if it is extended to 20 years each annual payment will be lower. As the business increases and more consumers are connected to the pipeline, the period for repayment will be shortened con­siderably. That is all that this clause refers to.

Once again members of the Opposition have attacked me because I gave them no precise information as to the actual cost of conversion of the burners. I would say that nobody in Brisbane could give me the precise cost of the conversion to natural gas by the South Brisbane Gas and Light Co. Ltd. Naturally, the company has submitted pro­jected costs to the Department of Mines, but I do not propose to publish them in "Hansard" because the company would then be more or less committed to that projection of costs. That projection indicates that this will be a payable proposition for the com­pany and that the introduction of natural gas will be to the benefit of the people of Brisbane.

Nobody in Brisbane would know the cost of converting the existing burners or of new burners. Naturally, the South Brisbane Gas and Light Co. Ltd. will be calling tenders­I suppose, from all over the world-to have the apparatus converted. How many different types of burners will there be? There are stoves, hot-water systems, and heating appliances, so how can anyone logically con­demn me for not being able to supply hon. members with the specific figures? I do not think anyone in Queensland could tell hon. members what those costs will be.

This clause is necessary because legal opinion is that under the existing Act these costs must be recouped in the year in which they have been incurred. We are allowing the company to spread that recoupment over a period of years. The recoupment will be taken into consideration in fixing the price of gas.

The hon. member for Wavell gave a very rational and knowledgeable assessment of what the Bill really means. The hon. mem­ber for Townsville South said that I had not indicated whether the gas would be carried in cylinders or in tankers. I thought it was well known that natural gas cannot be carried in cylinders, except under extreme refrigeration; similarly, it cannot be carried in tankers except under those same condi­tions. Obviously, that makes it a very expensive proposition. Natural gas will be distributed in South Brisbane by the present pipeline reticulation system. The only equip­ment that will be obsolete is the actual plant necessary for the generating of coal gas. There is no intention at the present time to convert Townsville from liquefied petro­leum gas to natural gas.

The hon. member said that the cost of the conversion in Townsville was borne entirely by the company. The facts are that the cost of the change-over was borne by the company, and those costs were taken into consideration when the price for gas was fixed in Townsville. That is exactly what will happen in South Brisbane. The actual cost of conve.rsion will be borne by the company when it converts all the appliances, but those costs will be taken into consideration in fixing the price of gas. In the long run the consumers in Townsville paid for the conversion, in the same way as consumers in South Brisbane will pay for this conversion.

If we had a gas undertaking which was not controlled in its activities and which did not enjoy a franchise-one that could enter into open competition-it might be .a different proposition, but the company m question is restricted in the amount of profit it can earn and in the dividends it can pay. We have complete control over the whole cost structure and the price it charges for its gas.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (2.47 p.m.): The Minister is one who would know, or who should know, that natural gas can

Gas Acts (8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1509

be converted by certain processes to lique­fied petroleum gas. Indeed, this is indicated by the Bill.

There is no reason why the Minister should say that we should know these things. We are entitled to ask about them. I now ask him again whether he is aware of certain costs. I should like to know whether he has obtained from the South Brisbane Gas Co. Ltd. the cost of producing 1 cubic foot of gas from coal. Does he know what the cost of 1 cubic foot of natural gas will be to the company? I do not care whether he gives us the figures on the basis of so much per cubic foot or so much per 1,000 cubic feet or any other measures, so long as we are able to compare one price with the other.

The company must know what it costs to generate coal gas. Rightly or wrongly, we believe that there could be a wide dis­crepancy between what it now costs the company to produce coal gas and what it will cost it to buy natural gas. We have not been able to obtain the other figures we have asked for, but surely the Minister could give us figures so that we could make a comparison between the present cost to the company of generating coal gas and the cost to the company of natural gas. Our argument today is that if natural gas can be obtained by the company at a much cheaper price than coal gas-if there is a wide dis­crepancy-the benefit should be passed on to the consumer.

I also wish to refer to the part of the clause that contains a reference to ''including reserve funds". I asked earlier why the companies could not have certain reserve funds and the Minister said to me, "You know quite well they are not allowed to have reserve funds". I then found in clause 5 this reference to ''including reserve funds". What does that mean? Are they reserve funds that are to be created, or have they been in existence for a time? If they have been in existence for some time, the Minister's statement, in reply to my sug­gestion that some of the cost should be amortised out of the profits of those who have invested in the companies, that there is no such thing, is totally irrelevant. It must fail in the face of my argument that the cost should be written off in this way. I ask the Minister what the phrase "includ­ing reserve funds" means. I also ask him whether he has figures relative to the cost of buying a certain quantity of natural gas compared with the cost of producing the same quantity of coal gas. I want to know whether they are comparable, or if there is a wide discrepancy.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (2.52 p.m.): The Minister's answer in the debate on this clause has not entirely satisfied me. I do not know if he enjoyed a rather sumptuous lunch, but it is rather refresh­ing to see that he is now approaching the debate in a more conciliatory spirit than he did this morning. He has reached the

stage when, by a proces'i of painful extraction by members of the Opposition, he is out­lining some basic details concerning what will -be entailed in converting to the use of natural gas. He said that this clause was necessary to clear up the point whether gas companies should make provision for their total conversion costs in one year. The Opposition has no quarrel with that. We believe that if the conversion is to take place it must be done quickly, but I am totally opposed to the consumers having to bear the entire cost of conversion. The Minister gave no indication whether he should have a say in determining how much can be written off for obsolescent equipment in any one year, but referred to this passage in the clause-

"Where a gas supplier has assets ren­dered obsolescent which are for that reason not used or applied by the gas supplier in or in connection with its business of a gas supplier such assets shall, for the purpose of calculating a price or prices of gas supplied by the gas supplier, be deemed to be assets used and applied by it in or in connection with its business of a gas supplier . . "

LC~ter. this appears-". . . should have been written off in accordance with honest and prudent busi­ness practice in relation to a gas supply business of the type carried on . "

The Minister made much of the fact that if these companies were in fact operating as monopolies and enjoyed the privileges that result therefrom, they should not object to having some control exercised over them. If the Minister can justify his arguments that these costs should be written off, he should insert in the Bill a provision to the effect that he will determine what pro­portion of the cost may be written off in any one year, rather than putting it to us that it is to be written off in accordance with honest and prudent business practice.

Let hon. members be aware of this. Not one hon. member could assess what method would be employed as an honest and prudent business practice. It could well be a business practice to extend over a period of 20 years the writing-off of obsolescent equipment. As the Minister pointed out, there will be an increase in the number of consumers. That could shorten the period of amortisation of the amount involved in obsolete assets. There­fore, the Minister should have reserved the right to lay down in no uncertain terms the amount to be written off yearly or over a given period.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba West) (2.56 p.m.): I did not intend to speak in this debate. I must confess that I regret I was not present to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Wavell. I had a medical appointment. I do not want to do the hon. member any injustice, but I understand that he dealt fairly fully with the implications of an interjection I made prior to lunch that when the electricity supply was converted from D.C. to A.C., the

1510 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendme11t Bill

generating authority bore the expense which, in the case of some sections of Toowoomba and elsewhere in Queensland, was quite con­siderable.

I understand, from a quick conversation I have had with one or two of my colleagues, that the hon. member for Wavell dealt with the point l made on the basis that the con­version enabled the supply authority to reduce its costs considerably and that in some form or another that benefit was passed on to the consumer. I trust I am correct.

Mr. De war: No.

rvh-. Dt:GGAN: It does not matter very much. The attitude of the Opposition and my reason for rising is that our protest is made primarily because of the paucity of informa­tion given to hon. members on this very important subject. Briefly, and without in any way going outside the ambit of the clause, I feel that I ought to say, as succinctly as I can, just what the Bill proposes to do and is permitted to do, because of the operable conditions of this clause.

It is by arrangement with Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. that it is possible for the gas companks to consider using natural gas in lieu of g.1s produced from coal or furnace oil. Apparently, for some time the gas com­pany had been considering the possibility of exploiting natural gas and weighing the pros and cons of the cost factor involved in obtain­ing that gas compared with that involved in generating gas from coal or furnace oil. The gas companies have had a fairly difficult period fnancially because they have had to meet competition from electricity.

I shall not deal wilh the advertising claims made by the producers of both products for heating or cooling in the home. Both pro­ducts have their selling points, and both have advantaGes as well as disadvantages. From a selling point of view the advantages lie slightly with electricity, inasmuch as there CJn be u greater diversification of electrical applian~s -used in a home. This involves an increased amount of electricity being used and therefore the consumer gets onto the lower ICJle. The use of gas in the home is limited. /clthough. many people prefer gas as a coo'-:mg medmm, unfortunately they do not use enough gas to obtain the preferentiai cost conditions applicable to electricity. The use of gas in a home is ordinarily restricted to cooking. refrigeration and house-warming appliances.

I think it reasonable to assume that, in considering whether it was prudent to change to natural g:'s, gas companies were very much aware of th~ threat posed by the increasing use of electricity, which has had some effect on the fi'1ancing of their operations and made them more vulnerable to take-over proposi­tions. The gas company at Townsville was taken over, and this important utility is virtually a monopoly.

The Minister says, on the one hand, that because of the restriction of 3 per cent. above the bond rate. there is no incentive to operate

gas utilities. On the other hand, he said in the same speech that there was no lack of applications when they were invited recently for a gas franchise.

i\-k Camm: That is right.

Mr. DUGGAN: If that is the case, people do not consider the supplying of gas to be an unduly hazardous financial operation. If it was not a sotmd proposition, no-one in his right mind would commit himself to expanding such an enterprise and obtaining additional franchises.

Let us see just what the position is. The $1 units of S.E.A. variable interest stock, according to "The Australian Financial Review" which I have with me, are now selling at $1.37. The highest point reached for 1967 was $1.44, and the lowest was $1.28. The interest rate on that stock is 2 per cent. aboYe the bond rate. In the case of gas companies, the permissible limit is 3 per cent. above the bond rate. Admittedly the S.E.A. is backed by the Government, and !!aS companies have not such backing to bolster their dealings with banks, other finan­cial institutions, and investors. For that ;-..:ason they produce a higher return.

I am not going to argue that 8 per cent. is an unduly high rate. I do not think it is. if money is to be ploughed back to extend and improve the service. The point is that it has been deemed expedient to use natural gas, and several things may have motivated that decision. Obviously the protection of an existing as :et is one. The fact that gas con~panies are to be given author}ty to write off plant and equipment that becomes obsolete by reason of the use of natural gas shows that the equity cf companies is considerably improved. The factor of plant obsolescence is reduced, because if companies were generating gas from coal or fuel oil they \~ ould face the possibility of increased com­petition from electricity, which would to a greater extent endanger the assets currently held by them.

Although gas companies do not seem to be a very lucrative field of investment, they have been reasonably stable. The $2 shares of the Brisbane Gas Co. Ltd. are currently quoted at buyer $2.02 and seller $2.07. The highest point reached in 1967 was $2.12, and the lowest was $1.98. The price fell slightly below par on one occasion, which shows that there is a variable factor in those -;hares. The $1 shares of the South Brisbane Gas and Light Co. Ltd. are currently quoted at $1.28, which is a premium of 25 per cent. Apparently investors feel that even with the limitation of 8 per cent. it is desirable to buy these shares. The highest price for 1967 was $1.35, and the lowest price was $1.03. Al no time did the shares of that company fall below par. It appears that the South Brisbane Gas and Light Co. Ltd. is slightly -;tronger financially than the Brisbane Gas Co. Ltd. By writing off obsolete equipment. the companies have been financially strengthened to that extent.

Gas Acts [8 NovEMBER] Amendment Bill 1511

The Minister should have said, "These are the benefits that will accrue," and then proceeded to outline them. He made no mention, except under pressure by inter­jection, of whether a cleaner and hotter gas was desirable. I should imagine that a cleaner gas would be desirable for domestic use. I should also think that hotter gas would be of some advantage in a home. The calorific value of natural gas would be higher than that of coal gas. Although the price would probably be equated to equalise the advantage accruing in that way, the company probably wollld still have a slight competitive advantage.

What will the long-term effect be? Is it wise to have two forms of power readily available in the community-on the one hand gas, which I say is desirable; and on the other hand electricity, which is essen­tial? Gas has a very limited use compared with electricity. Does the Government want the people of this State to have the advan­tage of natural gas, or does it expect con­sumers to use gas more extensively to enable it to justify the economics of constructing pipelines?

I do not make any complaint about Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd. However, for propaganda purposes the Government went out of its way to encourage that company. In so doing, it endangered a local industry with predominantly local capital. Although there is some I.C.L capital involved, A.C.F. & Shirleys Fertilizers Ltd. is almost exclu­sively an Australian company; the gas com­panies are exclusively Australian companies. That cannot be said of the company that will control the gas pipeline. I remind the Com­mittee, too, that the construction of that pipe­line will assist to undermine the economics of the coal-mining industry, which has already been affected adversely.

Mr. Dewar interjected.

Mr. DUGGAN: I am not telling any tales out of school. The hon. member for Salisbury and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated quite definitely that the Opposition would not have opposed the second reading of the Bill if the Minister had taken hon. members into his confidence. When a valuable consideration of this kind is being extended, surely hon. members are entitled to know the details of it?

I know some of the gentlemen in execu­tive positions in the gas comnanies, and many of them are very efficient. I can assure the Minister, as he was not able to assure hon. members, that those gentleman made a fairly careful study of the economics of this scheme before they embarked upon it. They knew precisely what the existing demand was and what the potential increase in gas consumption was likely to be, and they were well aware that it was economical for them to make the conversion.

Without reflecting in any way on any of the people concerned, I say that unless the conversion was going to place them in a

stronger position against their competitor, electricity, and they could continue operating in a smooth way, they would not have under­taken to proceed with it. Of course, it is possible that they may have decided to do so to protect themselves against a take-over. Without knowing anything about that, I say that it would not be unusual for gas com­panies to take that factor into consideration. We live in an age of "bigness", and southern companies have already cast envious glances at the generation and reticulation of gas in Queensland.

If I were in the confidence of the people concerned, I should not be surprised if they told me that overtures had been made by southern interests for the acquisition of gas companies in Queensland. If such offers have been made and the companies here have rejected them, they are to be cam­mended for doing so. I should like to see the control remain here, although I think it is likely that proposals of that type have been made. For that reason, it is important that hon. members should examine the pro­posed amendments very closely and endeavour to see that a reasonable balance is maintained between the various factors.

In my opinion, 8 per cent. is not an excessive rate of interest for a company to pay to its shareholders; in fact, I think it is a reasonable rate. However, because this is a public utility, I think that the interest should be in excess of that only in very exceptional circumstances. An attempt should be made to maintain efficiency. and I do not think hon. members should condone an increase over the bond rate if it is based only on an increase in price. It may enable a balance to be struck between protecting the interests of the con­sumers and enabling the comnany to con­tinue injecting technical and economic know­how so that the consumers may be supplied on the most advantageous terms. I think the Minister should have said, "The company has made its assessment of its financial investment, and it knows what is involved in the recoupment of that capital."

I do not think it would be a breach of businesJ ethics or of confidence between the company and the Minister if the JIJinister were to indicate that the company had set out certain proposals and had provided certain information that disclosed the fact that the company would be involved in the provision of some millions of dollars for this conversion. We feel that the company can recoup these cos:s, with 'the limitations on profit in excess of the bond rate over two, three or four years, and, unless some unknown factors arise in the meantime, the price of gr.s will be stabilised at its present figure.

I underotand that the hon. memb-:r for \Vavell pointed out in my absence that the cost to the electricity consumers would have been recouped to a certain extent by a lower tariff. In this instance we have heard nothing to indicate what the price factor will be and where these balances will li~. In

1512 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

the operation of a public utility of such importance, I think the Minister and the Government should see that encouragement is given to the company to use its best technical facilities and know-how and most modern equipment, with the assurance that it will be given a reasonable reimbursement for that risk factor and the provision of technical know-how. At the same time, the Government should see that in tht: providing of this most essential commodity­that is, heat-in the home for cooking purposes-and heat is essential, whether electricity, gas or firewood is used-the public interest is considered.

Earlier in this debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Salisbury invited the Minister to take us into his confidence and tell us the reason for introducing these measures. He should tell us what the amortisation period is, and he should also tell us the basis upon which he agreed to accept the company's proposals. 1 think that, as a matter of principle, the Opposition is entitled to that information. If it had been given that information there would not have been the division on the second reading and there would probably not have been a division at the Committee stage. But because the Minister has such contempt for the Opposition, and thinks he can rise and use airy-fairy words, not caring a tinker's damn about the Opposition's point of view--which we are entitled to express, and obliged to express from the public's point of view-he can expect to have divisions when he introduces these clauses. We know from past experience that we cannot ram down his throat by argument alone changes that we think should be made, for we know that he is not prone to adopt­ing that method of approach. We have not the numbers in the Chamber to defeat him if the Government parties care to vote as a bloc, but we have the media of the Press and "Hansard" by which we can show the public that there is a total unwillingness on the part of a Minister of the Crown to take Parliament into his confidence.

In another place today there is the pos­sible resignation of a Minister of the Crown resulting from his misleading the Parlia­ment to which he belongs. A situation of some political magnitude may develop in the Commonwealth Government because that Minister did not take Parliament into his confidence at all stages. While we on this side of the Chamber have the soul and spirit to resist that tendency on the part of the Minister for Mines and Main Roads, we are doing a great service to the public generally.

Oppn~ition Mcrnbers: Hear, hear'

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (3.14 p.m.): J shall not waste too much time in reply to points raised by Opposition members. The hon. member for Townsville North spoke about reserves. Under the Gas Act

the company was allowed to hold in reserve an amount equal to one year's dividend. I had indicated that it was not allowed to accumulate sufficient reserves to cover the cost of conversion. That is in the Gas Act, and is there for anyone to read.

Mr. Tucker: You did not know that before.

Mr. CAMM: Goodness me! I introduced that Gas Act.

As to the final cost to the gas company, all I can say is that the pipeline has not yet been laid. There are many costs yet to be taken into consideration. It could be said that the company has agreed basic­ally that the price will be 37! cents per 1,000,000 units, provided the cost of such­and-such does not exceed so much. There are all these things to be taken into con­sideration.

I do not think the final cost to the South Brisbane Gas Co. Ltd. can be ascertained at the present time. There may be increased royalty before it is all finished. Lots of things have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the final cost to make a comparison between the cost to the company of coal gas and of natural gas. Pipeline costs, price at the well-head, and so on, all have to be taken into account in arriving at the cost of natural gas in comparison with the cost of gas generated from coal. I know that natural gas will be very much cheaper than coal gas. The cost the company is working on is less than 30 per cent. of the coal gas cost. It expects that the cost of natural gas will be less than 30 per cent. of the cost of coal gas. Taking into con­sideration the conversion costs spread over the years, we feel that there will be no need to increase the price of gas to the consumer when natural gas is introduced.

The hon. member for Salisbury again raised the point that the Minister should have the right to say within what period of time these costs should be written off. As I indicated earlier, the shorter the period the more the consumer must pay; conversely, the longer the period the less the consumer must pay.

Mr. Sherrington: You have no control.

Mr. CAMM: We have control of the price to the consumer. As long as prudent practices are observed by the company, the period that it elects to take to amortise the cost of conversion will be taken into consideration when assessing the price of gas.

I remind the hon. member for Toowoomba West that the obsolete equipment he spoke about becomes obsolete only with the intro­duction of natural gas. Naturally, we have to make provision for the company to be allowed to write off the value of that obsolete equipment. The fact that when the pipeline comes through we can offer natural gas in Brisbane to other undertakings, such as brickworks and other large users of gas, is worthy of consideration. Naturally, the

Gas Acts [8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1513

South Brisbane Gas Co. Ltd. must have thought this to be a worth-while proposition before it entered into negotiations with the suppliers of natural gas.

I think the hon. member for Toowoomba West was very irrational in his criticism. He was somewhat at variance with other hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (3.19 p.m.): I am quite satisfied that the continual probing that the Opposition has been forced into in order to extract information from the Minister has been completely justified. Every time the Minister rises to make an explanation he justifies the Opposition's stand. In reply to points raised he said, "The pipeline has not even been laid yet." Surely the Minister will not try to tell the Committee that some estimate of the cost of the pipeline has not been arrived at. Surely an estimate must have been made to enable the gas companies and others concerned in the supply of gas to present a case to the Minister and justify what is provided in this clause about amortisation of the cost of .:onversion. Surely the Minister is not asking us to believe that he has no idea of the approxi­mate cost of the pipeline. Surely he does not expect us to believe that he has absolutely no idea of the cost of conversion of the burners and so on. He has given no indica­tion of the extent to which the company's assets, if they have not already been written off. have reached zero in book value.

It is a fact that many of the appurten­ances that have been used to supply coal gas over the years must be approaching the end of their economic life. Surely the Minister is not asking us to accept that, with the passage of this legislation, some of these assets that are virtually obsolete and have been written off assume some real and true value for amortisation on the conversion to natural gas.

I repeat that the Minister has detailed facts concerning this legislation only after a process of painful extraction by members of the Opposition. He has not given us any indication of the amount of depreciation involved in the plant used by the com­pany, much of which must have been in use for many years. Upon the passage of this legislation, will the consumer be made to pay the cost of amortisation at book value or will he pay the actual value determined according to sound business practices?

In reply to our submissions in the latter part of the debate on this clause the Min­ister displayed quite clearly that unless he is wilfully hiding this information from us apparently he has approached the legisla­tion in a completely ill-informed way­certainly not in the manner in which legisla­tion should be presented to the Chamber.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (3.22 p.m.): I should like the Minister to confirm his statement of a moment ago that the price of natural gas will be less than 30 per cent. of the price of coal gas.

Mr. Camm: It could be, yes.

Mr. TUCKER: It could be?

Mr. Camm: Yes, it could be; but there are many factors yet to be considered before a firm price can be arrived at.

Mr. TUCKER: That is a very sweeping statement-that the cost of natural gas can be taken as one-third the cost of coal gas. If we take the price charged to the Bris­bane consumers as 100 per cent.-I do not know what percentage is represented by the fuel in that 100 per cent.-it appears to me that if the price remains stable and the same reticulation methods are used, the price to the consumer will remain the same yet the cost of the fuel reticulated will be 70 per cent. less. That part of the final cost to the consumer which is represented by almost a 70 per cent. drop in cost will apparently be used to amortise the obsoles­cent equipment and the cost of conversion. I do not know if the Minister can tell us what that could represent, but looking at it very quickly as a layman it appears to be a very solid percentage of the final cost to the consumers; it appears to be a fairly solid amortisation. At the moment the Minister can give no indication of what it might be.

As the hon. member for Salisbury men­tioned, the book value of this equipment could be sky-high while it could have a very low value on the ground. I am not debating that point at the moment, although it could be the case. As the cost of natural gas will be one-third of the cost of coal gas, the con­version and the amortisation of obsolescent equipment could be achieved very quickly.

Question-That clause 5, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 34 Armstrong Bjelke-Petersen Camm Camp bell Carey Chir,chen Cory Dewar F!etcher Herbert Hodges Hough ton Hughes Jones. V. E. Kaus Lee Lie kiss Lonergan McKechnie

Miller Muller Newbery NICklin Pilbeam Porter Richter Row Sullivan Tomkins Tooth Wharton Wood. E. G. W.

Tellers:

Hewitt, N. T. E. Hewitt, W. D.

1514 Gas Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Bromley Donald Duggan Graham Hanlon Hanson Houston Inch Jones, R. L!oyd M ann Melloy Newton

Pizzey Low Delamothe Ramsden Hinze Beardmore

NOES, 21

PAIRS

Resolved in the affirmative.

O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker Walsh Wood, P.

Tellers:

Bennett Jordan

Davies Byrne Dean Wallis-Smith Dufficy Harris

Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8-Amendment to s. 51; Directions

and price-fixing by gas referee upon inquiry-

l\1r. SHEF..RINGTON (Salisbury) (3.33 p.m.): This clause deals with section 51 of the principal Act, which sets out certain duties and the price-fixing authority con­ferred on the Gas Referee. One of his duties, as contained in section 51 (b), is to "fix the price or prices to be charged for a supply of gas." The purpose of the clause is to add to subsection (3) the following proviso-

" Provided that the Minister or any gas supplier aggrieved by a price-fixing order of the gas referee may appeal against such order to the Industrial Court preserved, continued in existence and constituted under 'The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, 1961 to 1964' ... "

That, of course, gives to the Minister or any gas supplier a right of appeal. As already outlined by me and other Opposition mem­bers, it does not provide a right of appeal for what is possibly the most important group of people concerned with this legislation, namely, the consumers.

In view of the arguments presented from this side of the Chamber, I suggest that the Minister should be prepared to move an amendment to add after the words "gas supplier" the words "or consumers". If the Minister did that, the objections of the Opposition would be removed. If the Minister does not indicate that he is prepared to move such an amendment, I give notice that the Opposition will oppose the clause.

After submissions had been made by a number of hon. members on this side of the Chamber earlier in the debate, the Minister explained, in his usual brief and blithe fashion, that, in effect, he personally would watch the interests of the consumers. When he said that I really began to worry about this measure, because over the years the Government has displayed a marked aversion to fixing the price of commodities-in fact, to any form of price control. Hon. members have seen the Government's performance when the question of price control has been raised in this Chamber by the Opposition,

as it has been on many occasions; they have seen the lack of protection that the public gets from various Ministers when approaches are made to them by people who believe that they have been unfairly treated relative to the prices of certain commodities. I have a vivid recollection of what happened when the Queensland Housewives' Association approached the Premier on the increases in the price of commodities after the change­over to decimal currency. I remember the Premier, in his fatherly way, patting them on the shoulder and telling them to go away and he would see what could be done. I remember the Treasurer saying, when con­fronted at the Liberal Convention, that he would have an inquiry into the matter. Of course, there has been no inquiry. So that when the Minister says, in effect, that he will look after the interests of the consumers as far as the price of gas is concerned, it is obvious that this part of the Bill needs a searching examination.

I indicated in my speech at the second­reading stage that there are many people in the community-people on fixed incomes and pensioners, for example-who might have every justification for appealing against the determination of the price of gas. In my opinion, those people, together with members of the public generally, and the commercial interests that will be using huge quantities of gas, should have the right and privilege of appealing against the price of gas as deter­mined by the Gas Referee, just as the Minister and the gas suppliers have. If that right and privilege is not extended to the community generally, I believe that the Act will be lopsided and weighted unfairly against the consumer.

I do not recall any occasion on which action has been instituted by a Minister of the Crown to protect the rights of members of the public when an appeal has been made to him relative to certain matters. If the Government creates the position of Gas Referee and places in it a qualified person in whom it has every confidence, surely he is the person who should set a price for gas. after studying the facts and evidence presented to him. If the principle of appeal is extended and directed towards the Industrial Court. what qualifications would entitle that court. on the evidence that would be presented to it-the evidence that was presented to the Gas Referee-to set aside the judgment of a person well versed and greatly experienced in these matters?

A very salient point is contained in para­graph (c). The provision is not the one that is in the Local Government Act, under which the court can direct a local authority to apply to the Minister for a certain thing. Under the terms of this clause the court has power under paragraph (c) to make an order which it considers should have been made by the Gas Referee in the first instance. In other words, the court will assume the responsibility of a price-fixing authority and will decide the price of gas to consumers. If the Minister

Gas Acts [8 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 1515

intends to vest in the court the power to become the price-fixing authority for gas, then 'urely he must extend to the consumer the right to go before the court and present his case on the facts and have his case heard, just as, under the Bill, the Minister and the gas suppliers are entitled to present their cases. I believe that this right should be extended to the consuming public. If the Minister is to be the one responsible for the protection of the gas consumers, I would not c.loubt that he would show an unkindly dis­position towards what could be quite a number of applications to him for a revision of the determination that might have been made by the Gas Referee.

If the Minister is prepared to include the amendment that I have suggested and insert in the clause the words "or consumer", the Opposition will not oppose the clause. How­ever, I know from the Minister's performance this morning that he will adopt his usual attitude and refuse to accept the amendment. If he does, the Opposition intends to oppose the clause.

Hon. R. E. CAJ.\11\11: (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads) (3.43 p.m.): As I indicated earlier, the Gas Act at present con­tains no provision for an appeal against the decision of the Gas Referee. I am now intro­ducing a Bill that gives the gas company the right to appeal to the Industrial Court; it also gives the Minister the right to appeal to the Industria! Court, on behalf of the consumers, against the price fixed by the Gas Referee. This provision is very desirable, because the con version to natural gas will be quite involved and will include the writing off of much obsoiete equipment. It was considered necessary that a right of appeal both by the suppliers of gas and by the Minister should be included in the Bill.

Jf the hon. member for Salisbury thinks that we cannot look after the consumers in Queensland, I remind him that so long as my Government is in power the consumers will be looked after. If a parallel is needed, I point out that no right of appeal is given to the people of Brisbane against the price that the council fixes for electricity.

Mr. Tucker: There is no appeal against the price of anything.

Mr. CAMM: Wait a minute. The Council can appeal to the State Electricity Commis­sion against the price charged by the Southern Electric Authority of Queensland, but no right is given to the Minister to intercede on behalf of the consumers of electricity in Bris­bane. This Bill gives a concession to the suppliers of natural gas and also to the con­sumers in Brisbane, and I have no intention of accepting the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.45 p.m.): That there was no right of appeal in the Act now being amended is not a very valid point to the discussion at all. Under this legisla­tion there are !Wme entirely new principles

affecting price that are to the detriment of the consumer. I did not speak on the earlier clauses because I thought enough had been said. I am not satisfied to leave the question of appeal in the hands of the Minister, that is, in his official capacity. After all, if the Minister is going to deter­mine his approach in the same way as the Government makes its approach to price con­trol generally, we can expect very little con­trol over the price of gas.

Mr. Cbinchen interjected.

Mr. WALSH: The hon. member is look­ing at it strictly from the capitalistic point of view.

The Government is not inclined to inter­fere with prices generally. How, then, could we expect the Minister in this case to exercise his right to protect the consumer? Even if he thought it was justified he would weigh it against the Government's policy, which would be "No interference. This is free enterprise. Let them do what they like in the matter." Although the Minister might feel quite happy in his own mind that in his official capacity he has a right to appeal, whether he would exercise it is another matter. Having regard to the Government's policy, I suggest that the weight of evidence is against the likelihood that the Minister would exercise it. That is only a blind. As the right of appeal has been extended to the supplier, I should like to see the right of appeal also vested in some authority or body other than a Government authority.

Mr. Chinchen: Whom do you suggest?

Mr. WALSH: What about the Pensioners' League? That would be justifiable. After all, pensioners are very adversely affected by increases in rates, the cost of gas supply and everything else. Unfortunately, the Bill does not set out consumers' rights in any shape or form. I am not prepared to trust the Minister in regard to exercising his right of appeal.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (3.49 p.m.): I support the comments of the hon. member for Salisbury. Everyone must be filled with suspicion when we hear the Minister, representing the Government of this State, saying that he is prepared to inter­vene, if necessary, and appeal on behalf of the consumers. I cast my mind back a few years ago, when the Government had no concern at all for people in one part of the State. It did not intervene to help the people of this State who were paid lower bonuses by Mount Isa Mines. Ltd.

I, and the Opposition generally, do not believe that the Minister would intervene in any way on behalf of the gas consumers in this State. The Government's record on other occasions has proved that it is prepared to back big business, to the detriment of the ordinary wage~arners. I remember the the instance I have referred to--and there

1516 Gas Acts Amendment Bill [ASSEMBLY]

would be others-when the Government was represented in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in an attempt to block people from receiving rights that normally, they would have obtained.

The Minister is giving us lip service. We have never seen the Government intervene or protest in the Industrial Commission on behalf of consumers. It would be fat better, and it would prove that he was genuine, if the Minister allowed the two words "or consumer" to be written into the Bill. There could be no harm in that. The Opposition would see that the Minister was quite genuine in his approach if he accepted our amend­ment, which would allow anyone concerned to appeal, in the same way as the Minister has given a right of appeal to the company. We have no argument against that, but if the Minister is prepared to insert the two words "or consumer", he will demonstrate that he is genuine in his approach. I do not believe, nor can the Opposition generally believe, that the Minister will ever attempt to intervene or appeal on behalf of the consumers of this State. Every indication is to the contrary.

Question-That clause 8, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 33 Armstrong Bje!ke-Petersen Camm Camp bell Carey Chinch en Cory Fletcher Herbert Hodges Houghton Hughes Jones, V. E. Kaus Lee Lie kiss Lonergan McKechnie Miller

NOES, 22 Bromley Do Paid Duggan Graham Hanlon Hanson Houston Inch Jones, R. Jordan Lloyd M ann 'V!elloy

Pizzey Low Delamothe Ramsden Hinze Beardmore

PAIRS

Resolved in the affirmative.

Muller Newbery Nicklin Pi! beam Porter Richter Row Sullivan Tomkins Tooth Wharton Wood, E. G. W.

Tellers:

Hewitt, N. T. E. Hewitt, W. D.

Newton O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker Walsh Wood, P.

Tellers:

Aikens Bennett

Davies Byrne Dean W allis-Smi th Dufficy Harrls

Clauses 9 to 11, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

The House adjourned at 4 p.m.

Questions