legislative assembly wednesday july

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 1970

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

4 Special Adjournment [22 JULY] Papers

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY, 1970

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

ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES NOMINATION OF MR. S. R. RAMSDEN

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that the Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, is attending the 1970 Summer Parliamentary Visit conducted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, United Kingdom Branch, in London as representative of nhe Queensland Branch of the association and that he will be absent from Brisbane until 9 August. In accordance with section 3 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act of 1949 I nominate Mr. Ramsden, Temporary Chairman, to act in the office of Chairman of Committees during the absence of Mr. Hooper.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY; MINISTER FOR

HEALTH

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah - Premier) (11.3 a.m.): I desire to inform the House that in connection with the present overseas visit of the Minister for Health, the Deputy Governor, acting for and on behalf of His ExceUency the Governor, has, by virtue of the provisions of the Officials in Parliament Act 1896-1969, authorised and empowered the Honourable Frederick Alexander Campbell, Minister for Industrial Development, to perform and exercise all or any of the duties, powers, and authorities imposed or conferred upon the Honourable the Minister for Health by any Act, rule , practice or ordinance on and from 8 June, 1970, and until the return to Queensland of the Honourable Seymour Douglas Tooth.

I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Government Gazette Extraordinary of 23 April, 1970, notifying this arrangement.

Whereupon the hon. gentleman laid the Government Gazette Extraordinary upon the table.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the

table:-Proclamations under-

Acquisition of Land Act 1967-1969 and The State Development and Public Works Organisation Acts, 1938 to 1964.

Forestry Act 1959-1968. The Gas Acts, 1965 to 1967. The Jury Acts Amendment Act of 1967. Weekend Detention Act 1970. Education Act Amendment Act 1970.

Papers (22 JULY] Suspension of Standing Orders 5

Orders in Council under-The Workers' Compensation Acts, 1916

to 1966. The State Development and Public

Works Organisation Acts, 1938 to 1964.

The Newstead House Trust Act of 1939. Central Queensland Coal Associates

Agreement Act 1968. The Petroleum Acts, 1923 to 1967. The Supreme Court Act of 1921. The Queensland Law Society Acts, 1952

to 1967. The Religious, Educational and Charit-

able Institutions Acts, 186 1 to 1967. District Courts Act 1967-1969. Liquor Act 1912-1970. The Public Curator Acts, 1915 to 1957. Thf96~.rammar Schools Acts, 1860 to

The Rural Training Schools Act of 1965.

Factories and Shops Act 1960-1968. The Explosives Acts, 1952 to 1963. Medical Act 1939-1969. The Industrial Development Acts, 1963

to 1964. Forestry Act 1959-1968. The State Housing Acts, 1945 to 1966

and The Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee Acts, 1923 to 1957.

The State Electricity Commission Acts, 1937 to 1965.

The Southern Electric Authority of Queensland Acts, 1952 to 1964.

The Northern Electric Authority of Queensland Acts, 1963 to 1964.

The Harbours Acts, 1955 to. 1968. River Improvement Trust Act 1940-

1968. Water Act 1926-1968.

Regulations under-Land Tax Act 1915-1969. The Workers' Compensation Acts, 1916

to 1966. The Gas Acts, 1965 to 1967. The Legal Assistance Act of 1965. Liquor Act 1912-1970. The Registration of Births, Deaths and

Marriages Acts, 1962 to 1967. Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936-

1969. H ealth Act 1937-1968. The H ospitals Acts, 1936 to 1967. The Queensland Marine Acts, 1958 to

1967. Amendments of-

Regulations under Tbe Mining Acts, 1898 to 1967.

The Gas Regulations of 1966. The Petroleum Regulations (Land), 1966.

Notification of amendment to Rule under The Coal Mining Act 1925-1969.

Statutes under-The University of Queensland Act of

1965. James Cook University of North

Queensland Act 1970. Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account

as at February 28, 1969, of The Union Fidelity Trustee Company of Australia Limited.

By-law under The Harbours Acts, 1955 to 1968.

FORM OF QUESTION

Mr. BENNETT (South Brisbane) .having given notice of three questions-

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The latter part of the third question imputes improper motives.

Mr. BENNEIT: It does not impute any improper motives.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be the judge of that.

Mr. Chalk interjected.

Mr. BENNETT: You certainly imputed improper motives. You are "Comalco kid, the Treasurer". You are sour because you got too many Coma lco shares and have been exposed as a result.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member for South Brisbane continues to interrupt the proceedings during question time, or at any other time, I shall deal with him.

Mr. BENNETT: The Treasurer attacked me about my private activities as a professional man and I will not accept it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member rises again while I am on my feet, I shall deal with him . Will he please remain silent during the remainder of question time.

Mr. Bennett: Pro-vided the Treasurer does, I will.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

SHAREHOLDiNGS BY MINISTERS

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba-Leader of the Opposition) (12.4 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Some time in late April or early May I was offered shares in a company known as Comalco, and as a result I had a certain conversation on the telephone with a person who stated that he was a representative of that company. H e indicated to me that a similar offer had been made to certain Cabinet Ministers of this Government. I told .him that I was not interested in his offer and that in my view, because of the position that I held, it was completely wrong that he should offer shares under preferential conditions to me, or to anyone else holding a similar position.

I believe that since that time it has become public knowledge that certain Cabinet Ministers also were offered shares

6 Suspension of Standing Orders [22 J ULY] Suspension of Standing Orders

under similar conditions and that they accepted them. It has never been ascertained whether or not other Ministers were offered shares as well and what their reaction was. As you know, Mr. Speaker, at that time the Press dealt with this matter quite extensively, and there was obvious disquiet in the minds of the public about Cabinet Ministers holding shares.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to you this morning and asked that you allow us to debate this matter in the H ouse . I will read my letter to you so t,hat there will be no misunderstanding.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! From the point of view of privilege. I think the hon. gentleman is extending the limits, but I will allow him to read his letter. In fact , I should be the one to read it.

Mr. HOUSTON: You may read it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I had to disallow the request on the basis of Standing Orders.

Mr. HOUSTON: I am more interested in your letter than in my own, but to make your letter mean anything mine will also have to be read.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon . member is attempting to place it on record, I have no objection.

Mr. HOUSTON: My letter reads"Dear Mr. Speaker,

"I beg to inform you that in accordance with Standing Order 137 I intend this day, Wednesday, 22nd J uly, 1970, to move-

That the House do now adjourn.' "My reason for moving this motion is

to give the H ouse an immediate opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to consider the desirability of introducing legislation to forbid Cabinet Ministers and members of their immediate family from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the G overnment through a Minister or Cabinet.

' 'This has become particularly urgent because-

( a) of the breakdown in the previously accepted principle that Cabinet Ministers do not hold shares in any company dealing with the Crown, which principle has been re-affirmed by many Parliamentary Leaders;

(b) of the decision of Cabinet Ministers in South Australia to sell any shares held in companies affecting G overnment decisions;

(c) public disquiet as to the extent of Cabinet Ministers' shareholdings and how these were obtained;

(d) only a vote of the Members of this House will satisfy the public that the matter has been fully considered."

You Speaker, terms:-

acknowledged and replied

"Dear Mr . H ouston,

that letter, Mr. in the foilowing

"I acknowled<>e receipt of your letter of even date deli;'ered to me this morning by your secretary, Mr. D ownward, stating your intention to move in accordance with Standing Order 137, 'That the House do now adjourn' to discuss an urgent matter of public importance.

"I re<>ret to advise that under Standing Order No. 17, page 7 of the St.and~ng Rules and Orders of the LegrslatJve Assembly, it is provided-

T hat until the Address in Reply is disposed of no private business . or motion for adjournment under Standmg Order No . 137 shall intervene.' "Consequently I have no authority to

do other than apply the provisions of Standing Order No. 17."

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you wrote that letter in complete good faith! am not arguing about that-but I. refer you to Standing Order No . 16, . whwh, I believe, is a very important Standmg Order and reads as follows:-

" ADDRESS IN R EPLY T O SPEECH.

16. A Motion fo r an Address to the Governor in reply to His E xcellency's Speech shall, unless the H ouse otherwrse orders, be made and seconded, and the House will resolve to agree to the same with or without Amendments."

I emphasise the words, "~nless the. Hou~e otherwise orders". You drd not grve thrs H ouse an o.pportunity to determine whether or not we should proceed with the Addressin-Reply debate.

Mr. Hanlon: No motion has yet been moved .

Mr. HOUSTON: No motion has been moved at all. Certainly the Governor spoke, but Standina Order No . 16 presupposes that th is H ouse ~ould at its discretion, determine whether or not ' any other business should be considered this morning prior to the Address-in-Reply being moved and seconded. We all know that the Government intends to have the Address in Reply moved . In fact , it is item 10 on the business paper, but prior to No . 10 there is item 9 which is the acceptance of the Governor's opening speech. So far as the H ouse is concerned, we have not yet accepted the Governor's speech, or even taken it as read.

I believe that your ruling, although possibly correct according to Rule No. 17, is wmn" in fact because you have based it on th~ premise' that the Ad:Jress in Repl,Y was either under way or Hrs Excellency s speech had been received. When I wrote my letter to you, H is Excellency's speech had not been received by this H ouse. We certainly heard the speech yesterday, and

Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY) Suspension of Standing Orders 7

we then came into this Chamber and the Premier immediately moved the adjournment of the House. The Governm:'s speech was not received, accepted, or anything else.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that your letter to me was wrong in fact and that at this point of time we should be able to proceed with the letter I wrote to you so that this House can take advantage of the only opportunity, under the Standing Orders, for some considerable time, if at all, to debate whether or not there should be legislation to forbid Ministers of the Crown- whether it should be extended to their families is a matter for debate-from holding certain shares . I believe that we should have a Jaw on our Statute Book which sets out the position clearly. Laws made years ago suited the conditions of those days, but some of them have had to be changed.

I must ask for your ruling on this matter and whether you have considered Standing Order No. 16.

Mr. SPEAKER: In the first instance, I again point out that the Leader of the Opposition is remiss in raising a matter of privilege at this time; under Standing Order No. 46 it should have been raised before any other motions.

Mr. HOUSTON: It also mentions Orders of the Day.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before motions, etc.

I agree, in some principle, with the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition that this is a matter of urgent public importance.

The other point I wish to raise, respectfu lly, with the Leader of the Opposition is that he has approached this in the wrong manner. In one respect, if he had moved the suspension of Standing Orders I would have had to give the matter greater consideration. In the past it has been the rule that, when the Business Paper is presented to the House, that is the business of the day.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised a technical point, and I have not given a ruling. H on. members will have noticed that I refrained very carefully from doing so for the simple reason that I realised there was a technical point relative to Standing Order No. 16.

The latter part of my letter indicates that, under the Standing Orders, my hands are tied u ntil the Address in Reply is disposed of.

Mr. Hanlon: There is no Address in Reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: Rule 17 does not say that the Address in Reply must have been presented to the House. The Address in Reply, even though it has not been presented, has not been disposed of, and that is the main import-it is another technical point we must consider.

Mr. Hanlon: It has not even been initiated.

Mr. SPEAKER: From my point of view I state that , consequently, I have no authority to do other than apply the provisions of Standing Order No. 17.

I might mention, in all fa irness, that when the Premier and the Deputy P remier approached me and said, "Is there any way out of this?", I said--

Mr. Hanlon: Why was it necessary to take it up with the Premier and the Deputy Premier? It is not a matter for them .

Mr. Bromley: Surely Parliament is the master of its own destiny.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If hon. members interject while I am trying to make a point, I shall deal with them.

The point raised by the Premier and the Deputy Premier was whether we could g~t around Standing Order 17 and allow th.ts matter to be debated. I said, "I am afratd not , except by means of a motion for t~e suspension of Standing Orders." I am qmte prepared to leave that matter to the Hou~e and seek the opinion of the House on tt. This is the firs t time I have done such a thing. However, I realise it is importan~ . If the H ouse decided to consider an Imme.dlate motion for the suspension of Standmg Orders, it may be accepted. ~orm.a!ly , such a motion must be presented m wntmg or in any other way one hour before the House meets . I shall leave it to the J:Iouse to decide whether Standing Orders wtll be suspended so that this matter can be debated.

Mr. HOUSTON: Standing Order No. 16 states-

" A Motion fo r an Address to the Governor in reply to H is Excellency's Speech shall, unless the H ouse othe;,w1se orders, be made and seconded

I believe that I can move that the business concerning shares take precedence over the Address-in-Reply debate-in other words, that the motion for the adoption of the A:-ddress in Reply be deferred till the H ouse dtsposes of my letter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Otder! I will accept the opinion of the House.

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah - Premier), by leave, without notice: I move-

"That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the acceptance of a private member's motion before the House proceeds to the motion fo r the Address in Reply to the Opening Speech of His Excellency the Governor."

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (LockyerTreasurer): I second the motion.

Motion agreed to.

H onourable Members interjected.

8 Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY] Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The House having given its approval to the suspension of Stand" ing Orders, the debate will ensue. As this is a very serious matter, I ask all members of the House to conduct themselves accordingly.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba-Leader of the Opposition) (12.17 p.m.): I raise this matter because I believe that it is not in the best interests of the State and its people for Cabinet Ministers to be suspect in any shape or form. The principle of Ministers not holding shares has been laid down by many parliamentarians in the past-Churchill, Chifley, Curtin, Menzies, Nicklin and Gorton, to mention but a few-and only the other day the South Australian Government announced that its Cabinet Ministers had agreed to sell all shareholdings in com_panies that could be affected by Government decisions.

On 15 March, 1962, Mr. Nicklin, in answer to a question, had this to say on shareholdings, as recorded at page 2420 of volume 232 of "Hansard"-

"Despite the fact that legally a Minister of the Crown is permitted to hold share s in public companies, it is important that no doubt should be in the public mind as to the integrity of such Ministers. In view of this, I have asked my Ministers to refrain from investing in oil shares."

I believe that had the same question been asked of the hon. gentleman with regard to other companies that have dealings with the Crown, or from which information could be supplied to a Minister of the Crown prior to being given to the public, he would have m ade the same declaration.

The publ ication "Keith's British C abinet System", which is in the Parliamentary Library and is referred to by many people throughout the British Commonwealth, has this to say, under the section "Function of Ministers", at page 161-

"In the interests of sound administration, it is plain that a Minister should have no business appointments or directorship which might interfere with complete regard for his duties, and that he should never have any commercial dealin gs of a kind which may give rise to the suggestion that he is preferring personal advantage to State interest."

At page 162 of the same publication, Mr. Asquith, who was at that time Prime Ministe r of the British Government, states-

"Ministers must not use official information for the private profi t of themselves or friends. T hey must not be put into the position to be tempted to use official infl uence in support of any contract in which they have an undisclosed private interest. They must not accept any kind of favour from persons seeking to enter into contractual or pecuniary or proprietary relations with the State; and they

should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities as to which, from their special means or early or confidential information, they may have an advantage over other people in anticipating market changes."

N aturally, this matter of shareholding came to public attention again after the Comalco share issue to selected persons. Two factors come into this: firstly, the right of Cabinet Ministers to hold shares; secondly, the preferential treatment they received as compared with the general public. For the moment let me deal with the position of Cabinet ' Ministers holding shares, irrespective of how they got them.

The Premier has said on many occasions that there was nothing wrong; that he had complete confidence in his Cabinet colleagues and that they could do no wrong. I refer the hon. gentleman to other Cabinet Ministers about whom, I am sure, he would have said the same thing a few days prior to their being sacked from Cabinet.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Did the Leader of the Opposition move the motion that he o utlined earlier?

Mr . H OUSTON: Yes. I did not read it all out again because it is already in "Hansard".

I refer to the sacking of the H onourable Alf. Muller, and also to the sacking of the H onourable Alex. Dewar. With regard to the sacking of the Honourable A lf. Muller. I was shocked to hear what one hon. member said at that time about his former Cabinet colleague.

Now let me turn to the sacking of the Honourable Alex. Dewar. H e was a Minister in 1967. Mr. Dewar said that he was sacked because of the conflict of interests between himself, supporting the right of the Oasis . to have koalas, and Mr. H erbert, supportmg Lone Pine. Mr. Dewar went on to say-

"So, at the Oasis, Sunnybank, are the most famous koalas in Australia. They cost a Cabinet Minister his portfolio. F our little koalas cost a Cabinet Minister his portfolio. At least that is the real reason behind the catalyst provided by the Minister for Labour and Tourism."

H e was referring, of course, to Mr. H erbert at tha t time.

On 5 September, 1967, Mr. Herbert made a ministerial statement concerning the resignation from Cabinet of the hon . member for Wavell, Mr. Alex. Dewar. Amongst other things, Mr. Herbert said that he had had an interview with a couple of girls on the morning of Wednesday, 24 May, and he said-

. . . at this interview, the girls made allegations that Mr. Dewar, whilst Acting Minister, forced his intentions upon them by kissing and other actions."

Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY] Suspension of Standing Orders 9

H e went on to say-"After hearing the girls' story on the

Wednesday I fe lt that only one course of action was open to me, and th at was to report it to my Parliamentary Leader, the Treasurer, Mr. Chalk."

From that point on, of course, Mr. Dewar found himself out of Cabinet.

These two examples are mentioned to show that at any time a Cabinet Minister can lose his portfolio, that men, even in high places, can accuse one another of telling lies and being arrogant, and also that they will take whatever action sll!ts them to justify the situation in which they are affected .

Let us now consider the Comalco share issue and see how it affected this Parliament and its members. So far the public has been told-it has not been denied-that seven people were offered preferential shares. They were Mr. Chalk, Mr. Campbell , Mr. Hodges, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Rae, Mr. Tooth , and myself. Let me say quite clearly th at I do not know the details of the conversation that took place between the person who offered the shares and the other six people I have named, but I know the substance of the conversation between myself and the person who rang m e. I see little reason to suspect that the purpose of the offer would be any different.

When the offer was made to me, I believed that it was a gift of some substance. I believed also that it was preferential treatment; that, in making the offer, the company was wrong, and that for me to accept the offer would be equally wrong. In fact, I felt that this was so close to a bribe, or an investment in the future, if you like, Mr. Speaker, that I \\as not prepared to entertain it in any circumstances. I t makes one a sk why only six other people were offered shares. Surely none of us was offered this interest in the company other than because of the position he held. I have never had an investment in any company; I have never had any association with any brokers or dealers; not at any time did I show any inclination to be interested in share deal ings. In fact, to the contrary, my public statements and my private statements have always been that I believe th at money can be invested in the development of this nation and this State other than by taking out share issues in companies particularly those that will have dealings with the Crown.

Mr. McKechnic: Whom did that man directly represent? I want to know his name .

Mr. HOUSTON: He said that he represented Comalco . That was his statement, not mine. He also assured me that he would not be issuing my shares but th a t my name would be fo rwarded to the appropriate broker and in turn I would be given the paper work associated with the matter.

I know it would be wrong for me to use here the language I used to him on that occasion, but I left no doubt about my feelings on the whole matter.

Mr. McKechnie: Can I assume that he did not belong to the company, that he was not a direct representative?

Mr. HOUSTON: If it was not for the time factor I would have much more to say to the hon . gentleman. The point I am making is that only six other people received the offer. As I said, I was the only member in the senior ranks of the Opposition who received it. My deputy leader was not offered any shares. Why were only six Cabinet Ministers offered the shares? What was the purpose behind it? Surely the public statement made by the company to justify its action-namely, that they offered shares to a cross-section of people in the community, people for whom they had a high regard-will not satisfy the public or this Parliament.

How did the company sort out which three Liberals and which three Country Party members they held in high regard? Surely there must have been some knowledge of these people. Whether or not their judgment is right is not for me to say, and whether or not whatever they wanted would be achieved is not fo r me to judge. My point is that I believe that each of us in the positions we hold would have left ourselves open to certain feelings by the publ ~c if we were to accept the offer. T h1s IS

what we want to avoid, and I hope by the action I am taking today to make sure that our Cabinet is constituted of men who are so placed that no reflection can be made on the high offices they hold.

Let us have a look at this company and at the financial position of those who accepted the offer. As I said, the original offer was made some time late in April or early in May to various people. Comalco Industries, Australia's largest integrated aluminium com-. plex, was owned 50 per cent. each . by Conzinc Rio Tinto of Aust. Ltd. and Kaiser Aluminium and Chemical Corporation of the Un ited States before the decision was made to float a 10 per cent. share interest to the Australian public. Conzinc Rio Tinto, although based and operating. in ;-\ustralia, is 83.6 per cent. owned by ~Io T m!O Zmc Corporation Ltd. of the Umted KmgdOJ?· Comalco has the world's largest bauxite deposits at Weipa. The alumina sta~e. is carried out at Gladstone and the alummmm stage at Bell Bay, Tasmania.

The issue was of 13,000,000 fully p~id 50c shares. The option was for the startmg price of $2.75 to be paid in full on application, or fo r a spli t payment of $1.40 on application and the $1.35 balance on 31 March, 1971. It was reported in the Press -the Ministers can deny it if I am wrong and I will accept their denial-that they accepted the second method, which was to pay the


$1.40 down, the rest to be paid on 31 March, 1971. The reported holdings of the various Cabinet Ministers concerned were:-

Mr. Chalk and his family . . 2,500 shares The Industrial Development

Minister, Mr. Campbell 700 shares The Works, Housing and

Police Minister, Mr. Hedges 1,200 shares

The Conservation Minister Mr. Hewitt 1,200 shares

The Local Government and Electricity Minister, Mr. Rae 1,500 shares

The Health Minister, Mr. Tooth 1,200 shares

Perhaps I jumped in too quickly in that I did not get my share rating with the company. Perhaps I should have waited a while. to find out whether I was rated as a 700-share, 1,200-share or 1,500-share man, or whether I got into the Chalk class.

Mr. Chalk: Some of your mates will be able to tell you.

Mr. HOUSTON: That is their worry. They are not Cabinet Ministers. I am only concerned about the. integrity of the high office held by Cabinet Ministers. In addition, we could query the difference in the offers. Was it a matter of the financial standing of the men conerned? Knowing some of them, I do not think it could be. Or was it their value to the company concerned? Let us remember that the company offered its loyal employees-the men and women who made its money for it-150 shares in some cases and 200 in others; not 1,200, not 1,500, not 2,500, but 150 and 200. That was the offer made to the employees of this company.

Other named politicians who received 1,000 or more shares were the Premier of Western Australia, Sir David Brand, who received 1,500 shares; the New South Wales Minister for Child Welfare and Social 'Welfare, Mr. Hewitt, who received 1,000 shares; and the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr. Lewis, who received 1,000 shares.

All the Ministers in Queensland have been allotted partly paid shares; in other words, their payment so far is $1.40 a share. Knowing what the real value would be, I venture to suggest that, even if they did not have one cent to bless themselves with, any bank or financial institution would be quite pleased to lend them $1.40 for each share, which would very quickly have a value of $3 or $4, or even more.

Today a share is not how much that share re turns in dividends from a company. As we know, the big money is not being made in dividend returns from companies but in the escalation of share values and the selling price of shares. We have seen what happened with Poseidon and other companies that have had fantastic rises in share

values. At this point no-one knows what other facts are involved relative to share values.

It has been stated, and never denied, that those of us who received this offer were on a customers' list. Those who received the shares and made public statements have claimed that the share issue wa:s their own business. I cannot agree with that. I believe that some Cabinet Ministers bought into other companies at the ruling rate. No-one could query the right of a person who is not a Cabinet Minister to buy shares, but I have always queried the right of Cabinet Ministers to hold shares . There is a great difference between the two situations.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt, but I presume that the motion is that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOUSTON: No, for the suspension of Standing Orders to debate my letter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question for the suspension of Standing Orders has been put and carried. The suspension of Standing Orders is to discuss the motion by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chalk: The House carried a motion suspending Standing Orders to allow the letter placed before this House by the Leader of the Opposition to be discussed. I believe we are discussing the letter and its contents .

Mr. SPEAKER: I agree that the House has suspended Standing Orders, so Standing Orders relative to any business do not apply, with the exception of time limits and other aspects of speeches in the House. The substance of the motion was that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow debate on the Leader of the Opposition's motion.

Mr. HOUSTON: That is correct.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was carried.

Mr. Hanlon: No. We moved the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr. SPEAKER: I put the question and it was carried. I will accept the feeling of the House that this is an open debate and 40-minute speeches will apply, as in the Home.

Mr. HOUSTON: If my proposed motion is carried I take it that the Government will introduce legislation banning the holding of shares by Cabinet Ministers.

I was discussing whether or not the preferential issue was in fact related to the positions that these gentlemen hold . I believe it was. I believe that none of us, including myself, would have been offered these shares had we not held our respective positions. In other words, the offer was directly connected with and tied to our positions .

Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY] Suspension of Standing Orders 11

On the basis of $1.40 a share, let me point out what the outlay would have been to obtain the various shareholdings. The cost of the shares, calculated at $1.40 a share is as follows:-

$ The Chalk family 3,500 Mr. Camp bell 980 Mr. Hodges 1,680 Mr. N. T. E. H ewitt 1,680 Mr. Rae 2,100 Mr. Tooth 1,680

At the opening of the stock exchanae on the selling of the Comalco stock there "w~s a heavy demand for the limited number of public shares available. The fully paid 50c shares closed at $5 .50, and the partly paid at $3.90. In Brisbane, the partly paid shares reached $4.35 at one stage. In Melbourne they reached $4.50 and in Sydney $4.3 0.

Even at a price of $3.90 the profit was $2.50 a &hare, which virtually would have meant a profit of $6,250 to the Chalk family $1,750 to Mr. Campbell, $3,000 each fo; Mr. Hodges, Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Tooth, and $3,750 for Mr. Rae if they had decided to sell their shares at the opening of the exchange. The gamble, of course, is whether the price will rise or fall, but they know as well as I do that there was no gamble or risk, because the share price will go up, not down.

"The Sunday Mail" of 14 June, 1970, reported that Dr. Delamothe said that in his seven years as a Cabinet Minister, Ministers' integrity had always been above question. He said that Ministers had disclosed not only their shareholdings but also their personal interest, even in people, when matters came before Cabinet, and that they had not taken any part in any decisions . I do not think he will deny the published report of that statement in 'The Sunday Mail" following a Liberal Party meeting or convention. I commend him for that; I am not opposed to that sentiment at all.

On the other hand, the Premier is reported -if this is not right he can deny it-in the "Telegraph" of 15 June, 1970, as sayina when the question was put to him wheth~; Cabinet Ministers should tell one another of their shareholdings, "That reminds me of what you expect in Soviet Russia. I tell Ran (Mines Minister, Mr. Camm), he tells me, and we both spend our time watching each other over our shoulders. I regard this atmosphere of distrust as an insult."

The Premier later made it clear that he was not prepared to reveal his own shareholdings, either to the public or to fellow members of the Cabinet. He is reported as saying, "No fear, I won't reveal my investments. I won't reveal them to anyone . - I think it is an insult to ask any Premier or Cabinet Minister to do so."

The question now is, "Which one of the two hon. gentlemen in Cabinet made a factual statement?" If the statement made by the Minister for Justice is completely true, namely, that all Cabinet Ministers have divulged their interest whenever a matter has been discussed, that is fine . If it is true and if what the Premier says is correct, namely, that he will not divulge this information, we must assume that in the number of years he has been Premier no matter has come before Cabinet in which the Premier has had an interest. Perhaps this is true, too.

However, it makes it clear that the fi rst time Cabinet considers any matter in which a Minister has some financial interest, we have a conflict again, with the Minister for Justice saying, "You should all lay these facts before Cabinet," and the Premier standing out and saying, "I refuse to do so." The Government cannot have it both ways. This type of thing is not in the public interest. Surely the public are entitled to know and to believe that at a Cabinet meeting all matters are discussed purely and simply on the facts.

It is no good claiming that everybody is honest, although we would all like to think we are, because even people who are arrested and convicted in court claim their innocence. I think it is true to say that all men and women are basically honest, and in the eyes of the world they are honest until convicted of their first crime. I am sure a fellow named Stanley Korman and others, such as Huxley, who have been convicted recently of crimes, were considered good fellows and honest people by their colleagues and friends until their misdeeds became public.

The other day the Police Commissioner said that, today-I heard him say thiscriminals come from all walks of life and in all guises-rich and poor alike. Surely we do not want political life to be considered one easy way to feather one's own nest. I am not suggesting that anyone has done it in the past. But I do suggest that the public must be assured, and the only way they can be assured that the integrity of Parliament, and, in particular, Cabinet, is above reproach is through such legislation as I have suggested.

Let us bear in mind that it has been said that to invest in these companies is to invest in Queensland. There are many ways to invest in Queensland. If a person wants to, he can invest in Queensland by subscribing to the State Electricity Commission loan. I have here a copy of the prospectus which I think was sent to all hon. members. It says that money can be invested at 7.2 per cent. or 7.25 per cent., depending on the term of investment. Surely to invest in that loan is to do something worth while because it would be an investment in the development of Queensland.

12 Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY) Suspension of Standing Orders

At a function that I attended recently a Government member accused me and anybody else who had money in the bank of being damned fools. He said it was silly to have money in the bank when it could be invested in many ways to earn extra dollars.

Let me point out that, if it was not for the thousands of people who deposit money in banks, many of our developmental projects could not be implemented. I have a list of some of the investments that have been approved by the Treasurer during the past week. It is in the Government Gazette. The Commonwealth Bank has lent hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has lent $12,605 to the Ipswich City Council to augment water supply; $20,000 to the Townsville City Council for the Garbutt workshops; $40,000 to the Townsville City Council for road and drainage works; and $60,000 to the Townsville City Council for the Ross River dam. The C.B.C. has lent $10,000 to the Parco Shire Council for a small weir on the Warrego River. The A.N.Z. Bank has lent $10,500 to the Kilkivan Shire Council for roadworks. The National Bank has lent $50,000 to the Sarina Shire Council for sewerage.

Where do the banks get that money from? It comes from the savings of the small people. Their money is deposited with banks and they receive interest at the rate of 3 :t per cent., or up to 5 per cent. if deposited for fixed terms. The banks then charge a rate of interest of 7.4 per cent., thus making financial gain for themselves and their investors from the money of those who have made deposits with them.

I will not accept that those small people are not contributing just as much, or even more, to the development of the State and nation as those who have shares in companies that produce financial returns for them. Advances are made by banks to, for example, hospital boards. The Bank of New South Wales advanced $14,000 for the supply of medical and surgical equipment to the Ipswich Hospital. The National Bank advanced $37,800 for the provision of a new hospital at Eidsvold. The Commonwealth Bank provided $7,570 for laundry equipment at the hospital at Mossman. Such advances are important ways of developing the State, and if any members of Parliament, particularly Ministers, have money to invest , let them invest it in the State's development through proj-ects of a type that have no dealings with the Crown.

We also know that jockeys are not allowed to bet. That is not because it is believed that jockeys, as such, are dishonest; it is surely to keep temptation away from them. There are many other laws in this land that are designed purely and simply to keep temptation away from people. In ciur knowledge of Christianity we are all aware of the story of the Son of God and His disciples, and how one of the 12 betrayed him. One disciple, for a few pieces of silver, betrayed the Son of God.

If that could happen, as has been handed down to us through the Bible and biblical literature, surely no-one will say that any of us, as human beings, are free from temptation . The story has been handed down that man can be bought; it is only a matter of how much he can be bought for, and under what circumstances.

It is well known that in times of war there are those who would never betray their nation, but there have also been those who have. It is all a matter of circumstances and the whole basis has always been, "Keep temptation away." Our judges are paid high salaries. No-one denies their right to them, because they are learned gentlemen. But I have heard people in this House say that we have to pay judges high salaries and provide them with a superannuation scheme to which they do not contribute because not only do we want them to have no temptation to provide otherwise for their old age but we also want it to appear so to the public. I believe that to be most important.

Many people today are concerned about the way in which money is becoming virtually a power in this land . In fact, it has been said on more than one occasion that the power of money is being recognised as a god in this land. I read the other day a statement reported as having been made by Dr. Colin Clark, economist at the Monash University, who said that the worship of money dominated the men in charge of politics in A ustralia . That was his view, and it is also the view of many other people. We cannot afford to have it in this State. Dr. Colin Clark went on to say that such people believed that everything connected with making money was sacred . I believe that many of the industrial problems of today can be attributed to the greed of human beings, and to investors who want to make money sitting back whilst the workers toil and use their skills for them . We do not want that state of affairs here. We must take some notice of Dr. Colin Clark's assessment, and if men in high places in government have such an attitude, I see no reason why it should not extend into their private lives if the circumstances are there.

I think it is worth recalling that the Country Party set up a committee consisting c f Sir Francis Nicklin, Mr. John McCormack ( a former State Country Party president), Mr. Holm (the party's present junior vice-president), Mr. Henderson (the party's treasurer), and Mr. Adermann (the former Federal Minister for Primary Industry), to have a l ook at the matter of shareholdings.

This committee brought down a recommendation that it be the accepted principle f or all Ministers to refrain, in future, from buying shares or having an interest in any corporation or company which had, or was likely to have, negotiations with the Government involving operations in Queensland. The men who brought down that recommendation were men of high integrity, and I believe


that they brought it down for many reasons, the principal one being their own beliefs, their own way of life, and their own attitudes. As I said at the outset, Sir Francis Nicklin made a pronouncement in this Chamber when the subject of oil shares was raised.

We know, too, that the men comprising that committee considered the matter from the point of view of the public. They were men who move around in various walks of life-some of them are retired, others mix with different sections of the communityand, as a result, when they put this motion before the Country Party conference, they indicated, I believe, the wish and the will of the people. Perhaps it is unfortunate that Parliament was not sitting at that time so that the matter could then have been debated, but they brought •that recommendation down.

Mr. McKechnie: It was not carried out.

Mr. HOUSTON: It was not rejected unanimously, either. The question could be asked of those who voted: how many voted according to their conscience, and how many voted because they were frightened they might displease a Minister concerned and so get off-side with him?

We all know what happens in this House if an hon. member wishes to raise an issue such as this. We all know of the Country Party members who said in this House that they were sick and tired of being dominated and stood over by some members of the Country Party. It has been said here. I do not want to refer to what former hon. members said-most hon. members were here when the statements were made-but their statements were never rebutted. It is obvious that at the Country Party conference there were those who decided that they would like to curry favour with some of their colleagues. One might ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he stood up and supported the motion. He supported this motion; he did not support the motion that was finally carried. In any event, even the motion that was carried demanded that they not do what they did do-that is, accept preferential treatment. The hon. member for Carnarvon will not deny that. I believe the members of that Country Party committee did sum up public opinion.

The 700 shares offered on this occasion to one Cabinet Minister could be an offer of 5,000 by another company on another occasion. If the practice is allowed to go unchallenged, we are saying to every company round the place, "Bring up the amount". I suggest that hon. members should consider the question seriously.

Mr. Carum: What about Opposition members?

Mr. HOUSTON: We are not Cabinet Ministers. I laid it down quite clearly during the last election campaign that Labour

Cabinet Ministers would not be allowed to hold shares. In South Australia, Don Dunstan laid it down that--

Mr. Carum: A Socialist Government, of course.

Mr. HOUSTON: The hon. gentleman wants to trade on his position.

Mr. Camm: There would not be any shares because there would not be any companies under Labour. That is the whole idea. What about the hon. member for Port Curtis? What has he got?

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. HOUSTON: Because Cabinet Ministers had shares public servants accepted it as right that they 'should have shares. If it is all right for senior public servants to have. sh~res, it must be all right also for the ]umors. Where is this to start and finish?

Let us look at what the Liberal Party said . At its convention, it also laid down that when a member becomes a Cabinet Minister he should place his shareholdings in the hands of others so that there could be no allegation that any decision of his. was influenced by the possibility of any gam to himself.

Mr. R. E. Moore: That is not right.

Mr. HOUSTON: Yes it is. One of the hon. member's compani~ns gave it to me in all good faith and I accept it as correct. The hon. member concerned can deny it if it is wrong.

Mr. Aikens: What about your own backbench members?

Mr. HOUSTON: I do not care what any other member of the community does; that is his own affair. What I am concerned about is the public feeling towards the integrity of our Cabinet and our parliamentary system. For very much of the time this State is governed by Orders in Council; it is not governed by this Parliament for more than half of each year. The State is governed by Cabinet and Cabinet decisions, and as a result its whole workings and operations and any agreements entered into are governed by its Cabinet. Cabinet members have these matters completely in their hands.

I now move-"That legislation be introduced to forbi.d

Cabinet Ministers and members of the1r immediate family from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the Government through a member of Cabinet."

I believe the only sane thing to do is to bring the whole matter into the open. I know the Government can claim subsequently that it brought the legislation down . It can hav.e all the credit in the world. The only credrt I want is to be able to say to my children and grandchildren, "Irrespective of its political


beliefs, the Government in Queensland is one whose Cabinet Ministers are beyond reproach in their dealings with companies."

I could go on and tell the House what the public outside are saying. They are asking what the payoff is going to be. We all know that a powerhouse is going to be built and the public are asking, "What is the price going to be?''. I should say that the only way to keep public respect for Parliament and those associated with it is to introduce legislation such as I suggest.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (12.57 p.m.): I have great pleasure in seconding the motion so ably moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It has been said many times -I have heard the Minister for Justice say it-that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. Surely the same thing applies to this Parliament. It must not only be said that we are not corrupt, we must also appear not to be corrupt.

Over past weeks the amount of publicity given to this matter in the Press casts a reflection on every member of this Parliament, so I believe it is right and just for the Leader of the Opposition to bring this matter forward today in order that it may be publicly debated and to give those who accepted the offer of shares the opportunity to state their position, to debate it in this House, and thus give the general public, who have been watching events for a number of weeks, full information on the holding of shares.

Frankly, the attitude of the parliamentary branch of the Australian Labour Party is that no Cabinet Minister should hold shares in any company with which he might be dealing.

Mr. Campbell: When was that introduced?

Mr. Houston: I said it during the last election campaign, anyway.

Mr. TUCKER: That was stated by the Labour Party at the last election. The Government's view might be different but that is how we view the matter and as we expressed it at that time, and there was a simple and good reason for it. Many times during the last few weeks I have been accosted in the street and asked in a sarcastic manner, "How many shares were you alloted on this occasion?''. Qf course I have said, "I would never be offered anything by Comalco except insults in collaboration with the Premier." That was so especially when they opened the last extension at Gladstone and when the Premier said it was a pity I was not there. A Comalco employee told me that the Premier had asked them not to invite me. That is all I ever get out of Comalco and I have no brief for them at all.

However, to get back to the matter in hand, I believe it is very necessary for us to continue to keep the public believing that Parliament is completely and utterly incorruptible. I believe that this has not been so during the last few weeks. Most certainly the public's confidence in the Legislative

Assembly has been sapped in that direction. As I have said, I have frequently been questioned on this matter, and I resent the questioning. I resent, too, the implications by these people.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Mr. TUCKER: I was saying that I resent the questioning that I have been subjected to over the last few weeks, brought about by the action of certain Cabinet Ministers in accepting preferential shares . I placed emphasis on the matter of preferential shares. This is one of the key points in the debate today. Let us remember that the Ministers who obtained these shares did not go to the share market and obtain them with their own money in the ordinary way. They accepted these preferential shares, knowing full well that at that time they were supposed to be worth a certain amount and that it would be a matter of only a few days when they would have moved to a value of possibly twice as much as they paid for them. This is preferential treatment and it is the kind of thing that the people of Queensland resented particularly. My colleagues and I resented the fact that Cabinet Ministers obtained these shares at all, but the people of Queensland have emphasised their resentment of the fact that Cabinet Ministers were able to obtain these shares at a price which they knew very well would double in a matter of a few days or a week.

In the weeks following the Press release in Melbourne, statements were made that if a person buys shares it is a gamble, that he could lose or he could gain. No fair-minded person could claim that the acquisition of these preferential shares was in any way a gamble. There is no way in the world that the people who acquired them could lose. A gamble is something in which a person may win or lose, but if there is no chance of a loss it is not a gamble. The acquisition of these shares by the Ministers was not a gamble; it was a straight-out financial. handout to prominent members of Parliament designed, surely, to have some influence.

If the company did not seek to influence the Ministers by this financial hand-out but was concerned only with giving the people of Queensland in particular, and the people of Australia generally, an interest-a 5 per cent. interest or whatever it may be-in Comal~o , why did not the company pick names out of the hat and give J oe Blow or the man in the street a chance to acquire the shares at the same price? The first thing the company did was to pick out the names of the Cabinet Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition.

I read only one thing into that actionand I speak on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the people in my electorate-and that is that it was an attempt by means of a financial hand-out to influence these influential people. Surely the company and the people who run it must have realised


the political implications-or did they hope that this would never reach the light of day? I wonder whether they hoped that we would never hear about it and whether they got a tremendous fright when the information was released in Melbourne some few days or a week or so later. If their only idea was to give the people of Queensland an interest in the company, why pick out all the members of the Cabinet, prominent public servants and similar people and make them an offer over the telephone? To me, it smells; and to all the people, it smells.

. I said earlier in my speech that at no time should we in this Parliament be corrupted otherwise the whole fabric of Parliament will collapse around our ears. It is important to realise that because Cabinet Ministers accepted these preferential shares, whether. they were going to be corrupted or not, It appeared to the people of Queensland that they were going to be corrupted which is just as bad. '

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: What about when you suggest to men that they should break the law in regard to the National Service call-up? Don't you think that is bad?

Mr. TUCKER: There is no analogy at all . Later on I will deal with the Premier's attitude to this in a little more detail.

Cabinet Ministers who accepted these shares placed themselves in a position in which all the people of Queensland began tn suspect them. I am not alone in my attitude to this. The hon. member for South Coast made public statements about the matter, although possibly not as forcibly as I am putting my thoughts today. He showed his disquiet when be stated that certain committees should be established to investigate the position. Obviously he was worried by certain things that had happened. He was worried because, after moving around and hearing expressions of opinion, be found that the electors were against the Government. I am sorry that the hon. member is not in the chair at the moment. I believe that Mr. Speaker held the same opinion, because he made public utterances on this matter. He suggested that we should establish a committee to investigate these dealings and make a public statement about them. Some prominent members on the Government side have a feeling of disquiet about the action of Cabinet members in accepting these shares.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, many precedents on share dealings have been set throughout the world, not only in Australia. I will leave that to some of my colleagues, who will show that in every country responsible-thinking people in Government say it is not desirable fo r people to own shares in companies which they may later on ·have tn express opinions about, or decide whether or not to grant a contract

to them. All over the world there is disquiet about these matters and rules have been laid down about them. It is good that that is done.

This was a straight-out financial hand-out; there could not be any loss. I will put it a little stronger than that: it was a straight-out attempt to bribe those who, later on, may have to sit in judgment on this company. There may be other companies in which they have had shares allotted to them in the same way. I resent the implication that any member of this House could be CDrrupt, or be corrupted. By their irresponsible actions they have cast a shadow on everyone in this House. We should all be very resentful of that.

After the disclosure of these transactiDns, I watched, as did my colleagues, to gauge the reaction of Cabinet and members of the Government. The Government completely dismissed public opinion, which was running fast against it and is c"Ontinuing to do so. It dismissed public opinion completely. T he Premier and the Deputy Premier smacked the electors across the mouth; they gave them a backhander when this matter came before them. They would have nothing of it. How arrogant can they get? I was astonished.

Let me put the blame where I believe it belongs-right at the feet of the Premier of this State. He was quite blatant about his oil shareholdings in this State. He. set the precedent. He took 500,000 shares, or however many it was, from &oil, and said, "I am going to hang onto them irrespective of what you think." He set the main, and each of the Cabinet Ministers, watching to see what happened to him, sDon realised that nothing happened to him at that stage. They said, "If it is good enough fm Job, it is good enough for us." They followed his example.

There is always a leader in these matters. The Premier became the leader when he accepted oil shares-we told the public what was happening in this regard-and the other Ministers have followed his example. I am sorry that they have dragged the Government of Queensland in the dirt, and that they are endeavouring to drag this Parliament down with them. That is why the Opposition is raising this matter today and debating it. We are pointing out how wrong this is and that we will have nothing to do with it. The Leader of the Opposition was propositioned, and predictably said to the fellow who made the proposition, "Get lost! I am not going to talk to you because I believe that if I accepted this sort of hand-out I would jeopardise my position." I .?elieve that he did right, and the Oppositlon is very proud of him.

A moment ago the Premier questioned me. I was surprised, as were all the electors of Queensland, at the arrogance displayed by the Premier in this issue. I am glad he appeared on television so that the people


would have an opportunity to see the arrogant attitude he adopted towards the holding of shares in companies about which he might have to make a decision at a later stage. I was amazed at the godlike attitude he adopted when he was asked, in a reasoned and decent way, about his attitude on the retention of shares by Cabinet Ministers. His attitude was, "Who are you to question me about this sort of thing?" I beiieve that he then got up and walked out because one member of this news medium dared to ask him about a matter which concerned ail the people of Queensland.

Mr. F. P. Moore: It was a legitimate question.

Mr. TUCKER: Yes, it was. It would seem that the Premier and other

Cabinet Ministers are no longer answerable to the people of Queensland in these matters. He said, "Who are you to question me?" Surely one is entitled to draw the conclusion that he considers they are not answerable to the people. The day that impression permeates the whole of the Cabinet, democracy in Queensland wii! die. I feel that it is very near to death at the present time because of the attitude adopted by the Cabinet. I am very sad about it and very afraid of it, and so are many thousands of people in Queensland.

All members of Parliament-even the Premier, the Deputy Premier and other Cabinet Ministers-are answerable to the people for their actions, and if this attitude is to be adopted and people are to be given preferential shares by one company, it will not be long before another company says, "If we are to obtain the same sort of climate, we had better find twice the number of shares next time to offer to these birds. If we don't, we won't get anywhere." Hon. members opposite may laugh, but surely that is an attitude that could be adopted by such people.

For that reason, it is dangerous to allow Cabinet Ministers to pursue such a line, and surely some members on the other side have the intestinal fortitude-or, in plainer terms, the guts-to bridie them, put the bits in their mouths, and turn them from the direction in which they are now going.

It should also be said that at the Country Party and Liberal Party conventions, the senior members of those parties, including Sir Francis Nicklin and others, said that it was not desirable fo r this sort of thing to happen. Yet quite blatantly and arrogantly all the good ideas passed on by those who should know from long experience have been thrown aside, and members of those parties continue to take whatever is handed out to them.

Mr. Lee: Not passed on by an organisation such as yours.

Mr. TUCKER: I think the hon. member for Y eronga has a considered opinion on this matter himself, and, quite frankly, I

think it is worrying him. At present those under consideration are the ones in Government who have to deal, and to argue, with companies, and at present only Ministers come into that category. No Government backbencher would ever get into that position now.

Mr. R. Jones: And never will .

Mr. TUCKER: That may be true. The public cannot believe that Cabinet Ministers can divorce themselves from any side interest that they may have in companies that have dealings with the Government. Irrespective of the protests and arguments of hon. members opposite, the public thinks, "There is no way in the world that this man could divorce himself from his own private interests. There is no way in the world that a man holding an interest in a company would make a decision that would hurt him financially." It does not matter a tinker's damn what hon. members opposite say in this House, and they can argue till doomsday that Ministers would be above such personal consideration and would be completely unbiased. What matters is what the people of Queensland think, and surely bon. members opposite would be stupid if they accepted things that the public believe introduce a conflict between their official and private interests.

Mr. Sullivan: You are not speaking very respectfully of your former leader.

Mr. TUCKER: I am speaking as I see it, and straight down the line. I do not take one attitude or another because of a former leader or any other person. In any case, I do not think that what the Minister suggests applies in this case, because the former leader was not in the Cabinet.

Mr. Hodges: He was Minister for Transport.

Mr. TUCKER: If hon. members opposite want to refer to the former leader, let each and every one of them do what he had the guts to do-resign. If they want to play the game that way, let them have similar intestinal fortitude and resign.

I say again that in the public mind it is unlikely, despite what hon. gentlemen opposite themselves may say as Cabinet Ministers, that they could give a judgment against the company in which they had an interest that would hurt their own solid interest. That is the crux of the argument today, and that is what is bringing Parliament into disrepute. It may be that hon. gentlemen opposite can do it; I do not know. However, the public does not think that they can do it, and for that reason it is to my mind equally bad . Hon. gentlemen opposite have therefore placed themselves and this Parliament in a very embarrassing position. As I said earlier, this is worldwide opinion and it has been expressed in many books.

Mr. Carum: What about the Trades and Labour Council officials who are negotiating with this company? They have got their shares.

Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY} Suspension of Standing Orders 17

Mr. TUCKER: I wonder how far hon. gentlemen opposite will go if they accept this hand-out. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier that in a matter of two ~ays some bon. gentlemen opposite could, 1f they had sold their shares, have made up to $6,000. That is not a bad hand-out. Hon. members opposite can laugh and try to gloss the matter over by referring to other people but that will not take the heat off themselves; neither will it take away the fact that the people of Queensland know how they got it. The people know that they got it from a preferential share issue to which the great majority of the public had no access and from a company that is seeking to expand its activities in an area of Queensland. For these reasons, and many others on which my colleagues will elaborate, I am very happy to second the motion that legislation be introduced to forbid Cabinet Ministers and members of their immediate families from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the Government through a member of Cabinet. It is a very solid motion. If hon . members opposite are not prepared to stop the practice themselves, I believe that this Parliament should force them to do so.

Let me end on this note. At present there is a reflection not only on hon. gentlemen opposite but also upon this Parliament and every member of it. Ultimately this could tend to break down Parliament itself and break down the confidence of the people of this State in Parliament. I believe th at every Cabinet Minister who h as accepted these preferential shares-again I emphasise that it is a preferential share dealing-and who has engaged in share dealings generally has brought Parliament and every member of it into disrepute.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (2.39 p.m.): I was overseas when I heard of the offer of these shares to various people in Queensland. I was quite distressed to learn that Comalco had decided to introduce into Queensland some of the putrid aspects of politics for which American politics have been notorious for so long. It has introduced into Queensland, and into all parliamentary sections of this House, the putridity that we should do all we possibly can to avoid.

I h ave listened to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I admit it is quite natural for them to try to score off the Government. I am not going to spare the Government or any member of it who accepted these shares, because I believe that they were a bribe, that they knew they were a bribe and that they should not have taken that bribe; but, at the same time-and this is where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his eagerness to score off the Government fell into the soup-while he quite rightly accused members of the Government who accepted this offer of Comalco shares of

accepting a bribe, he inferentially accused prominent members of his own political party of being guilty of the same offence. He cannot have it both ways.

An Opposition Member: The public think we all accepted them.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I want to clear up one matter. There has not been any suggestion, and I do not think there is any suggestion, that there is any bribery involved, and in using such a word the hon. member is imputing improper motives to both Opposition and Government members. I ask him to please refrain from further reference to such a practice.

Mr. Bennett: I t is just ordinary corruption.

Mr. AIKENS: No-one would be more competent to talk about corruption than the hon. member for South Brisbane. He is a past master in the art of corruption.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: I would not have used the word ''bribe" had it not been used during your absence from the chair by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He accused every member of the Cabinet who _accepted this offer of accepting a bribe.

Mr. Bousen: He is right, too.

Mr. AIKENS: H ere comes the hon. member for Toowoomba somewhere or other into the debate. He, too, joins with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in accusing prominent members of his own party of accepting a bribe . I have here from the official records -I have not got them all but this morning I put a question on the Business Paper in regard to the matter-the names of prominent parliamentary members and influential members of the A.L.P. outside parliament who were offered shares. F irst there is Mr. T . Burns, of 175 Lytton Road, East Brisbane. Thomas John Burns was offered 400 shares and accepted them. He claims he gave his allocation to his father. It is very fortunate that his father has the same initials and the same address as himself.

Mr. J. E. Duggan, of 42 Bridge Street, Toowoomba, was offered and accepted 1,652 shares.

Mr. J. Egerton, of 12 Curragundi Street, Jindalee, whose address is Labour Broadcasting Station Pty. Ltd., corner Edward Street and Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, was offered and accepted 400 shares.

Mr. Bousen: On behalf of the station.

Mr. AIKENS: Of course, the A.L.P. broadcasting station can accept bribes and n othing is said about it. What an admi<sion from the hon. member for Toowoomba West.

Mr. Baldwin: What association have they with us?


Mr. AIKENS: I will tell the hon. member in a moment.

Mr. M. Hanson, of 15 Yaroon Street, Gladstone, was offered and accepted 800 shares.

Mr. HANSON: I rise to a point of order. I am not a holder of any Comalco shares;,! have never made a single, solitary cent out of the transfer or sale of Comalco shares. To further qualify that statement, during the peri<;>d of my life prior to my entry into Parltament and also during the time I have been a member of Parliament I have never made a single, solitary cent out of the sale of any shares .

Opposition M embers: Hear, hear!

Government Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I presume that the ho_n. member for Port Curtis, although I thmk ~e forgot to pay the Chair the courtesy of saymg that he rose to a point of order is making a denial. '

Mr. ~ANSON: I rose to a point of order by statmg that I am not a shareholder in Comalco.

Mr. SPEAKER: Thank you. Will the hon. member for Townsville South please accept the denial of the hon. member for Port Curtis?

Mr .. AIK~NS: All I can say is that the otherwise Immaculate share register of Comalco has been faked, because it shows the hon. member as being the holder of 800 shares.

Mr. John Mervyn Stanaway, of 51 David Street, Alderley, who, I understand is the publicity officer for the A.L.P., was' offered and accepted 400 shares.

I have not got the complete list· this is all I could get during the luncheo~ recess I. sincerely hope that in reply to my ques~ twn tomorrow the Premier will give a full list of everybody in the Country-Liberal ~arty. in this House, everybody in the A.L.P. m this House, everybody else in this House, all the members of the various parties and all their executive members and supp~rters who hold shares in Comalco. I am informed also that Lord Mayor J ones and Deputy Lord Mayor Walsh hold substantial numbers of Comalco shares, but I have not had time to obtain the extent of their holdings.

Mr. Bennett: Have their kids got any?

Mr. AIKENS: The only shares I hold are 400 in the Townsville Crematorium, and I shall be very happy to arrange for the disposal of the cadaver of any member of the A.L.P. or Liberal-Country Party who cares to come up there and give it some business.

The real gravamen of this motion is that it will preclude only Cabinet Ministers from holding shares in companies. Why only Cabinet Ministers? We have heard a great

farrago of nonsense from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the sacred principles of democracy and the need to maintain them. Yet in a democratic Parliament, as this is supposed to be, and in a democratic party, as the A.L.P., the Liberal and the Country Parties are supposed to be, Cabinet Ministers are responsible to the back-bench members and the executive members of their parties. How then can it be said that only Cabinet Ministers should not hold shares while the back-bench members and the executive members of their parties, to whom the Cabinet Ministers are responsible, are allowed to hold shares?

Mr. Houston: Are you going to vote for the motion?

Mr. AIKENS: I am talking a bit of common sense and I expect the Leader of the Opposition, among the members of the A.L.P., to appreciate the common sense. How many times have we known the parliamentary members of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or the Country Party to have a particular view and to have that view overridden by their backroom executive officers? How often have we known Cabinet to have a particular view and to have that view overridden by the back-bench members of the parties?

That happened only recently. What does it matter who holds the shares? If it is wrong for a Cabinet Minister in a particular party to hold shares, it must be wrong for the back-bench members and the executive members of that party to hold shares, because in the final analysis they are the ones who control the destinies and the policies of that particular party.

Let us end all this party-political manoeuvring. I know I am making an appeal that will fall on deaf ears, because in this Parliament, and unfortunately in most Parliaments where the party system is in vogue, it is a question of trying to score off the other fellow and not telling the whole truth.

As long as a member of this Parliament, or a member outside this Parliament or of any particular party, acquires a share or a bundle of shares in the ordinary way, that is, by buying them through the ordinary channels and paying the ordinary price for them, I see no reason why he should not hold them.

To say that a member of Cabinet would be influenced in his dealings with a company in which he might hold 400 shares out of about 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 is plain, unvarnished bunk. The motion will give an open go to all back-bench members of the political parties of this House to hold as many shares as they can possibly acquire; it will give an open go to the executive back-room controller-boys of all the parties to hold as many shares as they can acquire. It will exclude only members of Cabinet from holding shares.


I am not so naive as to think that this is the way that graft and corruption is worked. Graft and corruption works in many ways. It was tried on me when I was an alderman of the Townsville City Council. Anyone who knows anything about local authority work today knows that there is probably more graft and corruption in the local authorities of Queensland than there is in the Parliament of Queensland. Many of them reek with graft and corruption, yet there is no limitation in this motion on aldermen. As I said, Jones and Walsh hold shares in Comalco but this motion does not deal with them. I t deals only with 14 or 15 Cabinet Ministers; I do not know how many Cabinet Ministers we have now because the number is jacked up every year or two. H owever, this motion will deal only with 14 or 15 members of the 78 members of this House; it will not deal with any member of any party outside this Parliament.

In talking about bribery, graft and corruption , I repeat that, as a man of the world, I know that it operates in many forms and guises. What about the lovely little bit of graft Ansett is working with prominent members of the A.L.P. in the Federal and State spheres? What about members who previously always flew T .A..A. but who, in the last few months, have decided to fly Ansett because Ansett offers a free trip every couple of months for their wives and also gives them a holiday on Hayman Island? Have not members heard of the Ansett tie and the Ansett tie-clip?

Mr. Houston: No.

Mr. AIKENS: ·P'robably the hon . member has not got one . He should speak to some members of the A.L.P. in this House who religiously, regularly and sedulously flew T .A.A. for years. Since Mr. Gough, the "fixer" for Ansett. travelled through Queensland and provided a few luncheons-! had a luncheon at his expense with Duke Bonnet, but it did not get very far with Duke or me- that were attended by members of the Queensland P arliament, it is amazing to see the number of A.L.P. members of Parliament who have suddenly switched from flying T.A.A. to Ansett. I ask them why; I ask them to come out in the open and tell us. These are the men who talk about graft, bribery and corruption.

Mr. Bennett: Are you still flying Ansett?

Mr. AIKENS: I fly T.A.A., although I try Ansett now and again to check on something that Ansett was doing and that I intend to ask a series of questions about. My life is an open book. I am transparently honest, while the hon. member for South Brisbane is a slimy sophist. That is the only difference between the two of us. The whole world knows about anything I do and if nobody tells what I am doing, I do so .

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition dealt with the Premier's oil shares. I remind the House that that matter was very well

canvassed at the last election. We all remember the television sequence that was arranged, and the biggest joke of the Jot was that the hon. member for South Brisbane was even brought in as the legal adviser. He got quite a lot of p ubl icity from it. This matter was canvassed t!:Jroughout the State in the Press, on radio t.1lks and on television programmes. I t was hawked on the public platform and the hon. member for Townsville North, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, squealed his head off in Flinders Street and referred to the Premier as "Japanese Joh". He said, "Don't go with J apanese Joh." But what did the people of Queensland think about it? They did not accept the A.L.P'. conception of the Premier's oil shares.

I have expressed my views on the public platform a dozen times, and in case some hon. members have not heard it I will state it again for about the fourteenth time. The Premier and the late Ernie Evans decided to put a good deal of their own money, which they had earned, into boring holes all over Queensland looking for oil. They actually spent, according to information given to me, about £45,000 of their own money. The $4-hon. members ought to know this-was merely the fee paid for a lease. Anybody can get a lease. I think Mount Isa Mines Ltd . pays only $4 each for its mining leases, although I am not sure of that.

This is where the Premier and Ernie Evans ran with tremendous luck; I admit that. H aving "done" their £45,000 cold in dry boreholes, they decided to give the game away. Then oil was found at Moonie, 1,000 miles away, and then in came the big boys from the United States . They said, "If there is oil at Moonie, there might be oil around Nebo, Hughenden, Boggabilla and Betoota, and what-have-you, so we will buy into any company th at we can ." They bought in. They offered a pretty good price to the Premier and the executors of the estate of the late Ernie Evans to buy into their oil company, and they would have been first-class mugs if they had not accepted it. If they had not, if they had let their money go down the drain and had announced to the world that they had "done" £45,000 of their own money in sinking dry bore-holes, the Opposition would still have been on their backs saying, "Fancy electing a mug like that to the position of Premier of Queensland . He did his money cold in drilling dry bore-holes throughout the State." As I said, I admit that they ran with tremendous luck.

Mr. Jensen: They have been dry bores ever since.

Mr. AIKENS: T he hon. member can introduce a spirit of levity and flippancy into the debate if he likes .

I claim that I am an honest man, and I would have done exactly what the Premier and Ernie E vans did. This is how honest the Premier was. When he was taxed on the profit he made from that share deal, he thought the tax was unjust and went to the

20 Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY] Suspension of Standing Orders

High Court to test it. He lost the case. Surely he j s no t going to be denied his rights at law.

Mr. Baldwin: He was dragged there.

Mr. AIKENS: He was not dragged there. Don't be silly; it was the Premier who took the case to court.

Mr. Baldwin: I got legal advice on it.

Mr. AIKENS: I suppose the hon. member got it from Colin Bennett.

I remember when this matter was raised here, and I shall Jet the hon. member into something in connection with it . When it went to court, the Liberal Party members, with their usual, shall I say, never-ending desire to run the dagger between the shoulder blades of the Country Party, held several conferences-and they had some pretty good legal men-to see if they could pin J oh Bjelke-Petersen because of his oil deal. It all came out, and eventually they said, "This man has acted honestly and we have nothing on him; consequently, there is nothing we can say." But when the Taxation Commissioner said, "I am going to tax you on the profit you made on your oil deal," the Premier said, "No, you are not, because it is not taxable. I shall appeal to the High Court."

Mr. F. P. Moore: Did he win it?

Mr. AIKENS: No, he lost.

Mr. Bennett: He had legal advice from you .

Mr. AIKENS: He would have been sure to lose if he jlad briefed the hon. member for South Brisbane.

That is how honest the man was, and I pay him a tribute for his honesty.

Mr. Bou~en: Are you trying to change parties?

Mr. AIKENS: I do not ant to join any party. Now that the hon. member has interjected, he has to "cop" what is coming to him. I inform him now, in the presence of all hon. members, that his application to join the North Queensland Labour Pf\rty has been rejected . I would have kept that fact secret; my hps would have been sealed . However he is not the type of man whom we want in' the party, so we rejected his application.

It was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that in a television sequence some time ago the Premier walked out in anger from a quiz session conducted by an A.B.C. representative. Sometimes I think that if I was being quizzed by the A.B.C. as A.B .C. men seem to think they have a God-given right to do, I would do more than walk out; I would patently and blatantly insult them in front of the audience. They have a right to question me on all my public doings; anything that I do as a member of Parliament is open for questioning and catechising by anybody, whether he be from the A.B.C.

or not. But for some strange reason, A .B.C. catechisers think they have a right to ask politicians anything at all about their personal or business affairs. They do not have that right.

I did not see the television programme referred to, but I want to \Say that I was quite disappointed when told that the Premier lost his temper and walked out. I was sorry that he did that, because behaviour of that type creates a bad image. Had I been in a similar position, I would have given the A.B.C. quizzer a Roland for his Oliver, and he would have got off second best. The Premier's walking out in high dudgeon created a bad image, and I suggest that he not do it again. What he should do is stand and fight, not run away.

I would say, however, that even walking out on a catechising by an A .B.C. representative is infinitely preferable to the shocking performance put up by the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Whitlam, who has never yet given a straightforward answer when questioned on A.B.C. programmes. He will duck and dive, hedge, quibble, and shift his ground , and consequently, by such oleaginous performances, he is doing the Labour Party more harm than the Premier will do the Country Party or the Liberal Party by walking out. However, I am sorry that he walked out; he was very foolish in doing so.

Mr. Jensen: Your speech is a eulogy of the Premier.

Mr. AIKENS: I come here purely and simply to speak for myself and for the electors whom I represent. I do not stand up in this House representing a predatory combine such as the Fairymead sugar mill. I do not take my orders from them. I speak for myself and for my electors , and at every election they confirm what I have said.

Let us get right down to tin-tacks on th is matter of bribery. When speaking of honesty, think of the Federal members of the Labour Party who for years were vociferous in their condemnation of Ansett; there was hardly a session of the Federal Parliament during which Federal members of the A.L.P . did not have a crack at him. But they have not said a word about him for the last couple of years because they are accepting bribes from Ansett in the form of free trips for their wives and so on. Such bribes are being offered to members of the Federal House and this House, and, for all I know, other Houses, too .

I have been in this game all my life, and I know that the most insidious fo rm of briberv used on politicians and aldermen is bribery by social contact and political affiliation. It is done by invitations to nice luncheons, getting the person concerned to meet some nice people, taking him to some nice functions, and giving him a little V.I.P . treatment. Pander to his vanity and smother


him with flattery-more often than not that is the form of bribery that is the most insidious and the most effective.

As far as the motion is concerned, I am not going to vote for it, neither will I vote against it. I am going to treat it with the contempt that I think it deserves.

Mr. Bennett: You are going to walk out as the Premier did on the A.B.C. You are gutless.

Mr. AIKENS: I am not going to walk out, as the hon. member walked out this morning, in unreasoning anger. I am going to walk out calmly and deliberately, because I propose to brand this for what it is-a blatant, cheap party-political stunt. If members of the A.L.P. wish to move a motion that is sincere, they should amend the motion to read that no member of any political party, in Parliament or out of it, shall hold shares in any company with which the Government might do business. Make it impossible for any member associated with a political party outside or inside Parliament to hold a share in a company. They will then at least be honest. It is ridiculous to raise all this ballyhoo about bribery and corruption when I have read-! could read throu gh only a few documents in the lunch hour-the names of prominent members of the A.L.P. who are, in the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, acceptors of bribes f rom Comalco. This motion is simply a case of Satan reproving sin or the pot calling the kettle black.

I regret very much that the debate was brought on at this early point of time.. I regret very much indeed that it was not left till there could be placed on the table in Parliament, as I requested today, a copy of the share register of Comalco or a certified statement of all shareholders in Comalco who have any association with any political party in this House. Until that is done, I am not going to become a party to any blatant propaganda stunt pulled either by the A.L.P. or by the Government.

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah - Premier) (3.7 p .m.): I am pleased that I had the opportuni ty this morning of moving the suspension of Standing Orders so that hon. members on this side of the House would have an opportunity of discussing this question and perhaps other questions that are of particular interest to many of them. I take the opportunity to say, too, that many more vital issues could have taken precedence over an issue such as this, which could have been dealt with in the Address-in-Reply debate. When one thinks of the real problems that confront the State and many hundreds of thousands of people in Queensland at the moment, I think it is indeed astounding that the Leader of the Opposition should give the time that he has on this occasion to this issue.

Mr. Houston: Only two hours ago you were not prepared to give a statement.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: As all hon. members know, the State has been confronted with a very real problem in the strikes that are now taking place and those that are talked of.

Mr. Aikens: Why didn't you wait till the full list of shareholders was tabled? That would have blown them right out of the water.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is another side of the question. I emphasise that, with so many vital issues confronting the State, the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition are not the slightest bit interested in how the people of Queensland are being affected and the hardships they are facing.

Mr. Bennett: If that is your attitude, why didn 't you call Parliament together sooner?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: The calling together of Parliament sooner certainly would not have made any difference to the intere~t of members of the Opposition in doing something about the issues and hardships confronting the people. During the luncheon recess I was asked to meet a deputation of about 50 or 60 women who are vitally concerned with this issue.

Mr. Bennett: You said you wouldn't meet them.

Mr. BJELKE..PETERSEN: The hon. member is prepared to say anything that comes into his head, whether or not it is true .

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Chalk: Into his head, not into his mind.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is the opinion of many people, of course. The point is that these people came here and it was not a question of my not seeing them. As I say, the hon. member says these things just because they come into his head. It is completely untrue, just as many of the other things he says in this House are completely untrue.

This debate is an interesting illustration to us in this House, and to many people in Queensland, of the attitude and co?cern of the Opposition relative to the real Issues that confront the people of this State. I was able to :speak to these women about what concerned them. They were not interested in shares.

Mr. R. Jones: First things first. Want of confidence in the Government is a first thing.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: First things first as far as the people of this State are concerned. This particular issue could have been dealt with tomorrow or on any other da~ . As the hon. member says, first things should come first and the first issue is the welfare of the people and how they are affected . Of course, the Opposition is not concerned about that in any shape or form.


M uch has been said by the Opposition, and one of the things that surprised me was the very weak speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who .spoke of koala bears and many other things of that nature. He confessed that he had no shares in any company or in anything else in this State. I ask what kind of man he is to seek to lead this State after making such a confess ion? He is not prepared to invest in any company or back any company in this State.

Mr. HOUSTON: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is deliberately making untrue statements. What I said was that I had no shares in any company in this State, but that I supported the use of the people's money through the banks and through Government and semi-Government loans. I instanced the State Electricity Commission. That is where our money is. I ask the Premier to withdraw his statement. It is not factual.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: If the Leader of the Opposition wants it that way, fa ir enough.

Mr. HOUSTON: I ask the Premier to accept the denial.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has denied the Premier's statement. I ask the Premier to accept the denial.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I accept the denial, but what a poor attitude it is if one is not prepared to risk some money in a real venture.

Mr. Tucker: You did not risk any money.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have spoken on this matter. They made certain accusations and I think it is only right that the Premier should be heard without undue interruption when he is explaining his position .

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Dealing with the letter that the Leader of the Opposition sent to you, Mr. Speaker, of which I have a copy, it is very interesting to note, as the hon. member for Townsville South pointed out, that all he asks for is legislation forbidding Cabinet Ministers from holding shares in a company which could be expected to have dealings with the Government through a Minister or Cabinet. That is an amazing thing to put up to Parliament, to ask only that Ministers be forbidden to take shares in a company. To me, this is nothing more or less than a move to protect his own members.

Mr. Baldwin: We have no shares to protect.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: To protect members of his own organisation.

Mr. Houston: You know that is not true.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Then I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition has not included in the motion all members of Parliament and all members of local authorities.

Mr. Houston: If you think that is right, you can move an amendment to that effect.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I do not believe that this is right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out that there are many ways in which Government members and members of the Opposition can exert an influence on companies. The Leader of the Opposition's motion, which will apply only to Ministers of the Crown, some 14 hon. members out of 78, is completely ridiculous. The Opposition claims that it is wrong for us to hold shares but leaves it entirely open for its members.

The other interesting point in the Leader of the Opposition's letter is that it refe rs to companies that could be expected to have dealings with the Government. Which companies are the ones that are expected to have dealings with the Government? Comalco is 13 years old.

Mr. Aikens: Every company in Queensland.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, every company in Queensland, and outside of Queensland. Take Mount Isa Mines or Thiess. This morning we had an interesting illustration of what I am saying. The hon. member for Port Curtis asked that the Government do something about Mount Morgan. I do not know if he has any shares in Mount Morgan, and I am not suggesting that he has.

Mr. Houston: He says he has none.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I do not suggest for one minute that the hon. member for Port Curtis asked a question about the water fo r Mount Morgan with any ulterior motive. He asked the question in view of the importance of the matter. All I am doing is to illustrate my contention that the Government has dealings with almost any company. What company does the Government not have some dealings with? Hon. members on both sides of the H ouse play a part in matters associated with many companies, so members of the Opposition should see how futile is their suggestion that only Ministers should be tied up in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Melloy: How many of those companies offered shares to the Cabinet?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: No company offers shares to the Cabinet. These matters are taken up with brokers direct.

Mr. Aikens: How many offered Burns and Egerton shares?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned hon. members on my left-in fact, hon. members on both sides of the Housethat it is only right that the Premier should


be allowed to make his speech without interruption. Relevant interjections or queries will be tolerated, but I will not have this continual interruption. I shall have to deal with the next hon. member who interrupts.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Members of the Opposition spoke about bribes and that sort of thing. I do not want to go through Labour's history in this regard . I can understand the Opposition's concern about this aspect because of Labour's history. Anyone who reads "Three Decades of Queensland's Political History" will get the whole story, or a good deal of the story, of the history of the Labour Government relative to bribes, corruption, royal commissions, inquiries, and all that sort of thing. I do not want to go through it all at this point of time.


Mr. Hanlon: You refused to have an inquiry. We never refused to have an inquiry when you put anything up.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: There is no need for me to remind the hon. member, with his political background, of the whole history of the Labour Party in this field. He knows it backwards.

Mr. Hanlon: You would not have an inquiry into your own shares. You refused to have inquiries. Labour Premiers did not; they held inquiries to give the public a chance to hear about what was going on.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: All I am saying is that the hon. member would know the history of the Labour Party relative to all these things that happened again and again over a long period of time.

No Parliament in the British Commonwealth forbids Ministers from holding shares. A committee established in Great Britain under the past Labour Government found that members of Parliament could hold shares but that they should reveal their holdings at the appropriate time.

Mr. Houston: You said you would not do that.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is in relation to the number of shares I held. The hon. member knows that.

The committee also found that any legal member should refrain from practising his profession. I am sure the hon. member for South Brisbane is well aware of that finding.

Mr. Bennett: You are talking rot. Tom Aikens must have written that rubbish for you.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is a longestablished rule of Parliament throughout the British Commonwealth that members of the "long robe", as lawyer members of Parliament are referred to, should not speak or ask questions about matters in which they are,

have been, or could be professionally engaged or interested. The hon. member for South Brisbane knows that, I am sure. (Laughter).

Mr. BENNETI: I rise to a point of order. I do not know the reason for the mirth and hilarity. I do not know why the Premier, by innuendo, is imputing improper motives to me. I make it quite clear that as a professional man, when there was an A.L.P. Government, I told the then AttorneyGeneral--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is not entitled to make a speech on a point of order. I ask him to state his point of order.

Mr. BENNETT: What the Premier has suggested by way of direct query to me across the Chamber, and not through you, Mr. Speaker, is gravely offensive to me.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be unusual for any member of this Parliament.

Mr. BENNETT: I am a super-sensitive man. I make it quite clear that I clearly indicated to the Attorney-General that I would not accept a Crown brief because I was an A.L.P. representative in public, and. I have made it equally clear to the C1ty Solicitor that I would not take a brief from him for the same reason.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I think the hon. member has over-emphasised his point.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am not making any direct accusations against the hon. member. I am pointing out that if anyone is in a position in which he should take great care about his actions and attitudes in this House, it is the hon. member for . South Brisbane. He claims to be the champiOn of what is right and wrong, and what is above suspicion and beyond reproach, but every member in this Chamber knows what goes on; how he comes to the House and asks questions, week after week. He has asked 117 questions on police matters, many of them really consisting of four or five questions. He has asked many hundreds of questions in this House about policemen and the Police Department. How do we know in what way he used the information?

Mr. BENNETT: I rise to a point of order. I strongly resent the imputation of improper motives in the Premier's comments. I have never asked a question for the purpose of getting information about any case with which I have been dealing, whether it concerns the police or otherwise. Nor have I ever engaged in graft and corruption, as the Premier has. I won't "cop" that.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to accept the denial of the hon. member for South Brisbane.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am quite happy to accept the hon. member's denial. I am only pointing out certain aspects of this question of r ights and wrongs, and what


is improper as far as members of Parliament are concerned. The hon. member for South Brisbane says that certain aspects are improper and not right. I say that the things the hon. member does are to a greater extent improper and not right.

Sir Ivor Jennings has said in relation to members of Parliament who are practising as solicitors that it is a rule that they should not carry on any routine professional work with their legal firms. We know how the hon. member for South Brisbane enters the Chamber, day after day, when most of the day is gone.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I have repeatedly warned all hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Toowoomba East and other hon. members on my left. This morning, I stated specifically when this debate started that it was a serious matter, and I asked the House to give it due attention. Because of the interjections that have emanated from one side of the House or the other, I claim that it has not been given due attention and I warn both sides of the House that I intend to take action. I have threatened hon. members several times and I shall take action under Standing Order No. 123A if I consider any member is acting improperly.

Mr. Bousen: What about the other side?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I warn the hon. member for Toowoomba West.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: This is a serious question, and I am not suggesting anything improper so far as the hon. member for South Brisbane is concerned. I am pointing out, as I said before, that_ this must be treated in the proper light, and it does not apply only to one field or one section; it applies to every member of Parliament, in any walk of life, whether he is a solicitor or whatever else he may be, and no Opposition member can deny that this is fair and right.

Mr. Houston: You can bring in your own legisation to cover those matters. We are dealing with Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am dealing with this particular matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Mourilyan and the hon. member for Mackay interposed while the Leader of the Opposition was directing a pertinent interjection to the Premier. I can assure them that the Leader of the Opposition does not require any assistance. They will please refrain from making further interjections or I will deal with both of them under Standing Order No. 123A.

Mr. EJE.LKE-PETERSEN: This is an interesting d- bate. A number of questions have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition relative to the importance of certain ~hare transactions. I again emphasise, as I have

done on several occasions, that in 1957 Sir Francis Nicklin set down certain principles relative to the procedures to be adopted by Ministers. One was that they must resign from directorships, which is, of course, very important. This had not applied before then. This principle was adopted, and it is still being followed.

Mr. Bromley: They would not have any of you people as directors now after what you have done during the past 10 years.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: It was also observed that if a Minister had an interest in a particular company, he should acquaint Cabinet of that fact. This is still our policy.

Mr. Houston: What if 14 members of Cabinet have an interest?

Mr. E.JELKE-PETERSEN: Again, that is a hypothetical case.

These principles and policy were laid down by Sir Francis Nicklin. That is why I claim the position is well covered today, and all hon. members should realise this. As the hon. member for Townsville South said, the whole question is a political one for political advantage and gain. This is why the Opposition is not interested in debating the hardships confronting the people of Queensland. They are interested only in trying to gain political capital as quickly as they can.

I sav that all members of Cabinet have a reputation for honesty and integrity, and no-one can take that reputation from them.

Every company is affected by Government decisions, whether it be Mt. Morgan or any other old-established company, and that is why this motion is completely futile and ineffective. I am happy to have a vote taken later on this issue. I have no hesitation in saying that the people of Queensland are fortunate in having an honest Cabinet and Government. Labour policy is socialism, and the A.L.P. is on the threshold of communism.


Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Don't worry; I have a lot to say on this subject. Opposition members have moved this mntion for political gain. They take this action whenever they have the opportunity. Of course, they have from time to time used other methods. I warned the people when I was Minister in charge of the Police Fnrce that they were trying to destroy confidence in the Police Force, just as they are now trying to destroy the confidence of the people in the Government. They are now also trying to destroy law and order in the community.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that we are bringing Parliament into disrepute. What are members of the A.L.P. doing when they go out and advise young people to defy the laws of the land again

Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JuLY] Suspension of Standing Orders 25

and again? What are they doing when they advise young people to burn their call-up cards, and set up at the Trades Hall an office that somebody today called the "Treason Room"? Of the four men in the "Treason Room", two are communists. I could give a lot more in the story of who is who up there. There are 30 communists there, and many of them throughout the 11 affiliated A.L.P. unions must concern hon. members opposite, too. They must be concerned about some of these things, just as we are.

The hon. members for Townsville North and Townsville South spoke about my walking out on two television programmes. Hon. members do not know the basis of this. Someone rang from Sydney on behalf of the "Four Corners" programme and said to Mr. Schaefer, my Press Secretary, "Will the Premier go on 'Four Corners'?" I said, "What things will you talk about?" I was given 10 points. Just before Michael Willessee got me on camera, I said, "You are sticking to the arrangements we made in relation to the general subject?" He said, "No. I am sorry, Mr. Premier, we have thrown that away. I have another line." He attacked me immediately on shares.

I shall now explain why I walked out on the other occasion. A person came to see me from the "Today Tonight" programme and begged me to take part in a session at the Milton tennis courts. I said, "I have had my say on this subject. I am saying no more." He begged me to go on and I said, "On that basis, I will help you out. I will go on on the subject of the motion just carried." As soon as he got me to agree to this, he broke his word and changed the subject completely. That is why I walked out. We agreed that I would go on TV on the basis discussed.

Mr. Eennett: You were caught with your pants down.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Just as we caught you. I mention this to make known what actually happened. A man who had given me his word broke it a few minutes later.

There is much that I could say in regard to the motion be·fore the House. I could go on at some length with many topics that concern this State very much more than does an issue such as the present one, which could have waited some days before being raised. I say that the Opposition has panicked in its desire to get political advantage for the faceless men at the Trades Hall. I cannot, I will not, accept the motion in the words in which it is stated. It is restricted only to Cabinet Ministers and leaves all hon. members opposite and their supporters free to do what they want to do.

Mr. Sherrington: Move an amendment.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Why did not hon. members opposite do that when they framed the motion?

I have pointed out why subparagraph (a) of the Leader of the Opposition's letter does not apply. The principle laid down is still in force today.

Subparagraph (b) refers to what the Premier of South Australia has done. That is no reason why Cabinet Ministers in Queensland should sell their shares. As the hon. member for Townsville South and every other hon. member knows, merely selling his shares will not make a man honest. The history of bribery and corruption shows that that does not make honest men. Surely the history of the A.L.P. tells hon. members opposite that selling one's shares does not make one an honest man. If a man is not honest, that certainly will not make him honest. It is just a blind, as hon. members opposite and the Premier of South Australia know. Goodness me, what a blind!

The same could be said of a whole host of other suggestions. If a man is not honest, camouflage actions of this type will not make him honest. That is evident from the history of the Australian Labour Party.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter do not apply, and I reiterate that for ~the reasons I have set out I am not prepared to accept the motion 'that the hon. member has raised on this issue.

Mr. Bromley: Why don't you resign and let the people decide?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: As the hon, member for Townsville South said, the people covered this position fairly well at the last election. It was covered in my electorate for three months, but ,the position is what it is today.

The Australian Labour Party has raised this issue for political purposes. As the motion does not cover the position as it ought to be covered, I will not accept it.

Mr. HANLON (Baroona) (3.38 p.m.): I support ,the motion moved by the Leader of ~the Opposition that legislation be introduced to forbid Cabinet Ministers and members of their immediate families from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the Government. I do not wish to waste time by reading the motion again, but as the Premier has not dealt with it for the last 40 minutes I thought it might be appropriate to remind members of the motion that is being debated.

The Parliament having respect for its own worth as a democratic institution, and the community being desirous of having this matter debated as such and not side-tracked into other issues, as it could be in the Address in Reply debate or some other debate, both Parliament and ,the community might thank the Leader of the Opposition for charting the very difficult course through the Standing Orders to force on the Government a debate on this issue in terms of a specific motion. I was puzzled-and I am not being in any way disrespectful, Mr. Speaker-by your comments 1this morning and your use of the

26 Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY) Suspension of Standing Orders

Royal plural, so to speak, when you said that "we"-yourself, the Premier, and the Deputy Premier-

"after the receipt of the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, conferred to see if there was some way--"

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Baroona knows well that my statement was rudely interrupted by him. His rude interruption caused the disruption of the stat~ment, wh~ch was very clear and very pertment, that It was at my desk in this House in front of all hon. members, when th~ Premier and 'the Deputy Premier said "Does this ~ave to be?" I said, "Unfortunately the~e IS no way out of it. I t is something on which I have had to give a decision according to- the Standing Orders." I ask the hon. member, please, not to misconstrue my statements to- this House, otherwise I shall be forced to- ask him to discontinue his speech.

Mr. HANLON: I accept your denial, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. HANLON: Well, I am obliged to under the Standing Orders.

~r. SPEAKER: Order! I am not only askmg the hon. member to accept my denial. I am asking him not to make insinuations that the Chair is in collusion with the Premier and the Deputy Premier. That is what he is implying. I resent his inference and I ask him to withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. HANLON: Whatever you want me to withdraw I withdraw unconditionally, Mr. Speaker. You say you were approached at your desk by the leader of the Government and the Deputy Premier. That was not the way you said it this morning but I accept that that is what you meant. However, what was to stop you from calling the Leader of the Opposition over at the same time? I do not wish to waste time on that, but you say that the Standing Orders Committee has not met fo r four years, so apparently we have some inner executive of it--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member takes that attitude I will ask him to discontinue his speech and resume his seat. I am asking him to please approach this matter in a sensible manner. The House having decided on what action should be taken, I even conferred, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, with the Deputy ~ead~r of the Opposition on putting the motiOn m order so that it would be acceptable to the House. I could not be fairer than that.

Mr. HANLON: I do not want to pursue the subject any further.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think you will . I will not permit you to do so.

Mr. HANLON: I unreservedly withdraw any inference that you might think could be offensive to you, but reports go out from this Parliament. I have one here in the stop press of "The Telegraph" to the effect that the State Government took the Opposition by surprise today when it agreed to an open debate on Ministers' shareholdings. If anybody was taken by surprise it was members of the Cabinet when the Leader of the Opposition proceeded very carefully according to Standing Orders to produce a situation in which the Government was obliged to receive a substantive motion on Ministers' shareholdings.

I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that before the Premier spoke we had the situation where, after the motion had been moved and seconded, an independent member of Parliament was allowed to more or less give the Government's first reply to the Opposition.

I think the public and the Parliament rightly expect that there should be a debate on this matter because, in my opinion, it is one without precedent in the State. It is not a matter of a Cabinet Minister perhaps acting with indiscretion. I think the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Rae, used that term. He said of himself later that he had perhaps acted without discretion. This involves not one Minister but a group of Ministers acting collectively in a way that has caused great disquiet to the public and, indeed, editorial comment throughout Australia by leading newspapers of the nation.

Mr. Campbell: Do you suggest that Cabinet Ministers took the action in concert?

Mr. HANLON: I am suggesting that these are the things that require answering. I am suggesting that a situation has arisen and that certain conclusions, right or wrong, can be drawn by people unless Ministers are prepared to get up and give their answers. So far there has not been any rush at the barrier to get into the debate by Ministers who according to the Press, and they have not denied it, were offered and accepted these shares in a preferential manner, nor has there been any rush by the other Ministers to say whether they were offered them, whether they refused them, and so on.

This matter revolves around a substantial group of Cabinet Ministers. We were told in the Press-and the Deputy Premier can deny it if he wishes-that at a recent Cabinet meeting and a meeting of the Executive Council, he made a complaint about the paucity of attendance of Cabinet Ministers. I t was reported that only six were present. So far as we could gather from the report, four of them were Messrs. Chalk, Campbell , Badges and Rae, fo-ur of the Ministers who have accepted shares in this Comalco preference issue.

Mr. Camm: I was there to look after your interests.

Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY) Suspension of Standing Orders 27

Mr. HANLON: If the Minister for Mines was there I do not know whose interests he would be looking after, but he might be prepared to come into the debate and indicate whether or not he was offered the shares. If he was offered shares and did not accept them he might make it clear, as I would if I were in his position, that he has not got them either by nominee holding. To be fair to him, I do not believe that he has any Comalw shares, either in his own right or in any form of nominee shareholding or in any other way. However, these questions have to be answered by the Cabinet.

Instead of dealing with the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the ·P'remier told us that the Labour Party, with its history in these. matters, would have some awareness of them. I do not intend to let that remark go unchallenged. By way of interjection I said that on no occasion did the Labour Party in office in this State hesitate to hold public inquiries when challenged to do so, very often on the most flimsy grounds and submissions. That situation arose repeatedly. I do not want to refer to the Treasurer because he admitted in this House that on one occasion when an inquiry was held he. was not in a position to come forward and back up some of the things that he had said in the House at that time . In some inquiries the findings were adverse to the Government of the day. I remind hon. members, without reviving the particular incident, of a Commission relative to Mr. Foley, who was a Minister of the Government. What was the finding?

Mr. R. E. Moore: He lost his sense of smell.

Mr. HANLON: I do not think that the hon. member, or any Minister, is in a position to make smart-Alec references to Mr. Foley . If the hon. member turns out to be half as good a representative in this Parliament as Mr. Foley was during his time in this House, he will not go out of Parliament with any other feeling than that he has done a good job for the. State.

What were the findings on that occasion? They are of significance to this matter. The Commissioner, acting on the terms of reference of the inquiry, which was set up by the Government of the day, found that whilst the Minister himself had derived no material benefit whatsoever, he had corrupted his office because, in the opinion of the Commissioner, he had given some advantage to one Crown tenant that he had not given to others. It was held that there was corruption of office even though the Minister concerned had received no material benefit, so what is the present situation when, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Ministers who accepted this preferential share offer from Comalco were well aware, when accepting it, that the shares would sell at a premium as soon as they hit the market and that the Ministers would be receiving a direct cash benefit as a result?

It is pertinent to ask: is this the first time this has happened with this Government, or with any Government for that matter? Let us forget about Comalco for the time being, I t is a company that has the right to do what it thinks best, but I am at a loss to understand what prompted the company to take the unprecedented step of making a direct approach to Ministers of the Crown, Premiers of the various States and--

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: It did not make a direct approach. It came through the brokers.

Mr. HANLON: The Premier can ask his Ministers to say who approached them and who the broker was. Many people would claim that the approach was made directly by the company. I cannot imagine that a company with the standing of Comalco would do this sort of thing expecting the consequences that followed. I can only assume that the company felt it was doing something that would be well accepted .bY the public. Naturally we do not agree with it; we think it was wrong in taking that action. But that is the company's business. The members of the company do not hold public positions as do Ministers of the Crown and the other peqple to whom we have referred. We can only assume that when the Ministers were approached by Comalco they were well aware of their situation in being circularised by the broker about the share issue.

I want to refer to the statement made by the Chairman of the Brisbane Stock Exchange. I listened very carefully to the Treasurer when he was interviewed on this matter in the A.B.C. television programme "This Day Tonight". The Deputy Premier ~ad the guts to see the interview out, which, in my view, the Premier did not seem to have, although that remark may be more offensive than I meant it to be. I do not wish to talk in that way, but the Deputy Premier got through the interview and the Premier walked out for the re:tsons stated by him today.

The Deputy Premier, in trying to defend the preferential offer of these Comalco shares, said that he acted in the same way as any Queenslander could have act~d. I refer him to the statement by the Chrurman of the Stock Exchange in Brisbane who complained bitter!:( that broker~ in. this city were given very little opportumty If any t:o secure a preferred issue of shares for their clients.

Mr. Chalk: That is not unusual.

Mr. HANLON: That is not unusual , but it should be unusual. It is wrong to my mind, and it was apparently wrong in the view of Mr. Phillips and most people in Queensland because Comalco is earning so much of its profits within Queensland under agreements entered into by some of the


very same Ministers-not all were in Cabinet at the time-who were chosen to receive the preference share issue.

The Country Party conference tried to deal with this matter and the hon. member for South Coast approached it by saying, "Nothing has been set down before; something should be set down for the future ." I think he still adheres to that view because I saw him on an A.B.C. TV show after the Country Party conference and he said he regretted that the conference had not gone as far as he would wish relative to Country Party policy. What will happen in future? The same Ministers are dealing with Comalco. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this is not just something that we are saying; it is referred to in the business and finance section of "The Courier-Mail" of 15 April, 1970, as follows-

"A group of 26 top United States Banking, Insurance and financial representatives yesterday ended an inspection of Queensland Bauxite and Alumina industry convinced further great expansion was ahead of it." It then referred to Queensland Alumina

at Gladstone and to the construction of a large aluminium smelter by a group led by Comalco, with other partners, by 1975. It then stated-

"The major factor in the smelter would be the cost of power. The Queensland Government expects to offer a favourable rate from the new major powerhouse to be built at Gladstone."

In other words, Messrs. Chalk, Campbell, Hodges, Hewitt, Rae, Tooth and other members of the Cabinet will be making the decision, not Martin Hanson, Tom Burns, or Bill Smith, or anyone else in Parliament or political parties outside Parliament which is why we are submitting this motion to cover Cabinet Ministers.

In the interests of the State I do not object if a rate can be struck that will be favourable to developing the industry. I do not wi~h to down-grade the construction and development that has occurred at Gladstone and elsew,here through this company. We have the situation in which these Ministers will continue to deal with this company, yet the Premier asked, "How are we to know what companies are likely to deal with the Government?" We can certainly say, irrespective of the companies that may deal with the Government, t·hat there is no risk that Comalco will not be dealing with the Government for some time.

Furthermore, the Opposition and many Queenslanders have objected to the royalties struck in agreements entered into with this company and other companies for the development of coal and so on. Whilst these agreements .have the force of law, as they have been ratified by Parliament, they provide for variation by agreement of the parties. Comalco announced on 16 July

that it had lifted its interim profit from $5,382,000 to $6,678,000 for the six months just ended.

It had some difficulties in that time by way of shipping problems, and was not able to get out as much bauxite as it hoped, so that we can anticipate it will make more profit next year. Would not ~ny responsible Government look at the. sect10n in the Comalco agreement made m 1957 which provided for minimal royalties and say that it would approach Comalco and the other companies concerned on whether there should be some variation to the agreement on royalties, in the light of the rapid escalation of profit, which is on record. It is not denied by Comalco; it would not want to deny it, because it is an indication of its business expertise in this regard.

We are interested in the assets that we, and particularly the Cabinet, hold in trust for the people of Queensland. We would expect the Government to approach Comalco relative to its rapidly escalating profits from bauxite to see if the agreement could be varied.

We would also expect the Government to approach Utah and Thiess, about whom we get reports every couple of months. It was reported last year and again. this year -in fact in recent weeks-that htgher coal prices had been negotiated by those companies. But there is no suggestion that this Government is approaching those companies and saying, "Your agreements provide_ for a variation" but there is a suggest10n that this prefe~ential issue to Ministers some_h_ow fits in with the power-ho~Jse propostllon that is coming up , because a good d_eal of power will be required in the expanston of Comalco or Queensland Alumina Limited at Gladstone.

Ministers say that it is just one of those thinas. The Treasurer suggests that the shar~s could have sold at below their issue price. Of course, not many people would aaree with him on that . Any person who ;as allotted these Comalco shares, a_s Cabinet Ministers were, would have been in. !he situation of a person who had backed DIVtde and Rule after the running of the Brisbane Cup and simply had to wait until T attersall:S opened on Monday to go down and get hts monev. He would simply have to go through the process of collecting his money. Anyone would have known, when the offer was made, that there was no risk of loss. Therefore, Ministers cannot say that they were taking any risk.

They were not made available to any broker in Brisbane. If they had been, they would not have been available to the ordinary person or the average citizen because they would have been made available only to the selected regular clients of brokers, those who in the opinion of the brokers had a right to some priority.


Whiche.ver way we look at it, the Opposition has sound grounds for moving this motion. I think that the members of the Liberal Party and of the Country Party should have examined this matter closely. Whilst it does not tie up exactly with the decisions of their own parties, it runs very close to them. Members of those parties did not go as far as the motion suggests we should, but I think they should think carefully about this motion moved by the Leader of the. Opposition. The Ministers who accepted this offer-and I do not say they did it with any lack of integrity-have a vested interest in defending their action and getting support for it. Back-bench members of the Government, who are not involved in the matter should look at it from the point of view of what should be done, and what has been solidly indicated by both their parties as to the procedure to be adopted in future . If the motion is agreed to legislation will be produced by the Government, which can then be examined by Parliament. The motion will not place any prohibition on Ministers. The Government will be instructed, through Parliament, to bring forward for examination by Parliament legislation forbidding Cabinet Ministers from holding shares .

I do not wish to take up further time unnecessarily. The Minister for Industrial Development asked me if I thought there had been collusion among Ministers. Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that Ministers would discuss the matter among themselves and ask their colleagues whether they had received an offer. I see that the Minister for Justice is now in the Chamber. Although I do not want to single him out, his name does not appear among those who received offers. I <;lo not want to suggest any lack of seniority of the Minister for Health, particularly as he is not present, being out of the country, but surely the company, if it thought it was good enough to offer him shares, would have offered them to the Minister for Justice, who holds a very responsible position and is also Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. We do not know whether an offer was made to him, but, if it was, it must have been rejected.

I think there is an obligation not only on the Ministers directly concerned but on other Ministers as well to inform Parliament whether they received offers, and what their reaction was to them. As soon as this matter blew up, the Minister for Local Government and Electricity was prepared to say that he felt it might have been indiscreet to accept such an offer, and that is the closest thing to an admission made by any Minister that he might have had second thoughts about what was done.

If Parliament passes this motion, it will enable legislation to come forward, which the people of Queensland are certainly looking for, even though the Government, for political reasons, might wish to see it rejected . One will have to keep an eye on the birthda y

honours list next year and the New Year's honours list. I do not recall who were made knights in the last list, but certainly one will have to look to see if there are any "aluminium" knights in the next lists. Granting knighthoods seems to be one of the traditional methods of giving rewards for services rendered.

Mr. Wharton: That's a pretty tinny argument.

Mr. HANLON: I said "aluminium" knights; I do not know about "tinny" knights. If there was an "aluminium" knight created at about the time of this issue, it would be far more than tinny; it would be an extreme coincidence indeed. I suggest that hon. members might care to check the next honours list, or the last one, to see if there are any aluminium containers in them, and try to link that with what has taken place in the offer of shares.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the various authorities, such as Sir Francis Nicklin , from whom we could quote. There are many statements to which reference could be made, and I want to quote one in particular. It goes back quite some time and relates to action taken by the House of Commons, and its terminology is such that I think it has particular application in the present situation. It was referred to some vears ago in this House. The then Premier, Mr. Arthur Moore, referring to what he felt should take place in such a situation, said-

"In 1912 the House of Commons appointed a Committee to inquire into the purchase of shares in the Marconi Company by the Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George, and the Chief Government 'Whip,' the Master of Elibank who, on the death of his father, became Lord Murray. The report of the committee was discussed in the House of Commons on 18th and 19th June.

On the latter date the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith , formulated what he described as 'rules of positive obligation' with respect to the conduct of Ministers of the Crown."

That language is fairly clear. It goes on to say-

"T he 'Annual Register' for 1913, at page 141 , thus summarises Mr. Asquith's code-

' A Minister ought not to enter into any transaction, involving, even conceivably, a conflict of private interest and public duty; or use official information for his own or his ·friend's private profit; or put himself' "-

I want you to note these next words .particularly-

" 'under temptation to use his official influence in support of schemes or contracts in which he had an undisclosed private interest; or accept any kind of favour .• .' "


Heavens abo·ve! What is this sort of thing from Comalco-an increase of thousands of dollars nver a week-end? If that is not some kind of favo-ur, I do nnt know what is.

It continues-"' ... or accept any kind of .favour

fro~ persons in negotiation with, or seekmg to enter into contractual or pecuniary relations with the Government; and Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments as to which they have an advantage . . .' "

The Premier has challenged the Leader of the Opposition because he confines his investments to State Electricity Commission and public loan issues, which he thinksrightly so~contribute just as much to the development .of this State as any public company capital does, yet we find a Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Asquith, saying-

" . .. 'and Ministers should scrupulously avoid specula tive investments as to which they have an advantage over others in anticipating market changes.' "

That is the end of the quotation from the statement by Mr. Asquith relative to the purchase. of shares in the Marconi Company at .that lime. Every word of it condemns the attitude adopted by the Ministers who accepted the issue of Comalco shares.

Mr. P. Wood: That quotation is on the same. page as the quotation used by the Premier tn defend himself.

Mr. J:IANLON: I would not be surprised . I use It-and I conclude on this noteonly t.o. indicate th at I have quoted from the opm10n of a Country-Nationalist Premier of Queensland, Mr. A. E. Moore, who was quotmg the words of a Prime Minister of Great B:itain, .Mr. Asquith. Every word of that.~~ applicable in this situation, and I ask Mm1sters to examine it.

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (LockyerTreasurer) (4.8 p.m.): In my 23 years in this Chambe.r. I have never denied the right of any political party or person to criticise me ~n any issue, ~nd I. be!ieve that the OppositiOn has the nght, If 1t so desires tn raise the particular issue that is now before the Hou~e. It was. because I had that point of v1ew that th1s morning I was pleased to have the opportunity to second the move made by the Premier to allow this debate to take place, so that the Opposition, and a.nyone else who· chose, would have· the nght to stand up in this Chamber and make his accusations against those persons to whom he desired to refer.

I believe that the Comalco issue is <me on which there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding, a certain amount of half-baked truth, a certain amount of political stirring, and a desire by some people to score politically in relation to the actions of certain Cabinet Ministers and other persons, including public servants, who have taken up Comalco shares.

Let me make it quite clear that although welcoming the motion before the Chamber I do not propose to support it. I believe that the hon. member for Townsville South, in some words I would use had he not already used them, outlined the reasons why a motion of .this nature could not and would not be acceptable to the people of this State.

If any action is to be taken by the Government of the day, I believe that the desires and viewpoints of the political parties that constitute the Government should be the viewpoints that we who are elected under that type of political banner would be expected to accept and that we should not lay down something in this Chamber in relation to Ministers only when we know it is true that many of the avenues of approach to Ministers of the Crown do not come from members of Parliament or from any particular company .

Not one member in this Chamber can deny that his own po-litical party has received extensive and handsome donations from various companies at election times. So, if we are going to get down to accusing Ministers of the Crown, because they hold a few shares in a particular company of considerable magnitude, of being tempered in their thinking by that small investment, then the time has come for us to look at the over-all political situation and the over-all administration of government rather than to act in this Chamber on the basis of an accusation against a Minister of the Crown.

Let us look at what the Opposition has done in launching this campaign today. Let us look at the argument that has been put forward. After all , as I have said, it is based on the letter .that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Speaker this morning. It is based on a desire, as has been pointed out, to limit any decision made to forbidding Cabinet Ministers and close members of their families from holding shares in companies that can be expected ·to have dealings with the Government through a Minister or Cabinet. I make no apologi•es fo r saying that I hold a number of shares in companies in Queensland and in other ;parts of Australia.

Anyone who reads an annual report of a particular company in which he has some investment is more often than not surprised to know the various ramifications of that company.

Mr. Melloy: Did you get a preferential issue?

Mr. CHALK: I will come around to the hon. member in a moment. My life in .this particular share transaction is an open book.

Very often one does not know •the companies in which a major organisation or company in which he is a minor shareholder has become involved. How could one possibly know the dealings that a company


has with the Government when he knows very little about that company except what he reads in the daily papers about the standing of his financial investment in it?

What have we heard so far? The Leader of the Opposition mentioned two points, and I thought that his speech would develop them. First of all he queried the right of Ministers to hold shares, and then he queried their righ t to hold what he called preferential shares. I believe that those two issues and no others are before this Chamber at present. I am not interested in someone's taxation affairs, I am not interested in koalas; I am interested in the issue that has arisen . It is not my intention to dig deeply into the past, but surely when .the Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself to attack Cabinet Ministers of this Government he could have thought back a little further to some of the things that happened in the great mining development of .this State some 20 or 30 years ago and thought of the names of certain people.

Mr. Marginson: That does not make it right.

Mr. CHALK: It is quite true that it does not; but it is relevant to ask what the Labour Party did when these things happened in its time in office. Did it introduce any legislation as a result of findings made by royal commissions? Did it attempt to corr-ect any anomalies? No. But when it suits the Labour Party it is prepared to come into this Chamber and, for political gain, talk a lot about what should o·r should not be done. Of course, it can be argued that the actions of someone in the past do not make the present actions of someone else correct. I agree with that. But why has the Labour Party, and particularly those at its head, suddenly become so pure and lily white, as it were, in their handling of these matters? Simply for political expediency. That is their only reason for raising this matter.

Let us look at where this thing startedand I propose to name only one person. This matter was raised by a senator who, till this particular time, in my humble opinion had no fame whatsoever. He had achieved a little fame in that he employed Mitch Thompson and Brian Laver, rabble-stirrers with doubtful political affiliations. He also had considerable attention drawn to himself by his actions in trying to convince the young men of this State that they should not register for National Service. Even today he is out at the university rabble-rousing and telling young people not to accept National Service training. That is the type of individual he is. Admittedly he achi·eved some fame. I do not know why, and I do not question his reason, but any person who changes his name in this State, and who is not prepared to honour the name of his parents, is not worth very much. Yet he is the person who raised this issue.

Let me outline the merits of this man who, having first associated with men whose political affiliations are very doubtful, went into the Senate with one idea in mind, namely, to damn the company of Comalco. That was his first idea, and I emphasise that we should not forget his associates; we should not forget the type of union fellow with whom he has been associating. He first set out to damn the Comalco undertaking.

Secondly, he tried to cause disruption and trouble within political parties in Government; his second desire was to try to bring down a democratic Government; to try to put into power in the State a socialist Government to suit his own requirements; a socialist Government that would damn the development of industry in this State.

That is the type of individual who raised this issue. Not satisfied with attacking a company and attacking members of Parliament, he also attacked public servants. I do not mind the full truth being stated anywhere but did this individual, who must have checked the share register to get the names that he did, publlsh all the names? I::Ie selected only certain people. That is the type of half-baked individual who has been advancing this information for consumption by the people.

Mr. Bjelke-Petersen: Closely associated with the Communist Party.

Mr. CHALK: I know that. He gave the names of only half of those

appearing on the share register who were associated with political parties . In other words, be is nothing more than a dirt-pedlar. I want the people of Queensland to know the type of individual he is.

I will now outline exactly what happened so far as the Comalco shares are concerned. Over many years I have held shares in many companies. To put it quite bluntly, what businessman in the community who has had a certain amount of success in life is not an investor in some company or other?

Mr. Marginson: Did you get them in the same way as you got Comalco's?

Mr. CHALK: I will tell the hon. member how I got Comalco shares if he will listen. The trouble with him is that he has never listened in his life.

When I was elected to Cabinet, the then Premier, Mr. Nicklin, laid down that no member of his Cabinet should hold any directorates. He also indicated-those who have been associated with me since the original setting up of this Government know this-that there was no restriction on the shareholdings of Ministers. However, Ministers are expected-! believe this has been carried out faithfully, because I have heard many Ministers do this-to indicate to their colleagues if they have a shareholding in a particular company which is being discussed in Cabinet-not the number of shares held, because nobody wants to


know that. Any Ministers with shares in such a company can take part in the discussion, but, if a vote is taken, they must refrain from casting a vote. That has been the policy of this Government during the 13 years that we have been in Government, and nobody has queried that policy.

It is true that when the Comalco issue was mooted, many people mentioned to me that they felt Comalco would be a profitable undertaking. I could name three brokers and a prominent banker who spoke to me about it. I do not deny that, in public life, we meet the directors of various comip:anie'S. I have met some directors of Comalco who have said to me, "We are going to float shortly. I think it will be a good company." However, I do deny that I was telephoned by any director or anybody else associated with Comalco relative to this particular issue of shares. They may" have known I was interested, but I was never phoned. I received a letter from Ian Potter, the sharebroker. I ·have the letter here and anybody can read it.

Mr. Bennett: This is after the preliminary approach?

Mr. CHALK: I have already said there was no preliminary approach. In the first paragraph- this is important because people have ei ther misconstrued it or tried to misconstrue it-the letter says-

"At the request of the Chairman of Comalco Limited, Mr. D . J. Hibberd, we have pleasure in enclosing a prospectus of an issue by the Company of 13 ,000,000 shares ... The shares are payable either in full on application . .. "

Then it outlines the progress of the company. Mr. F. P. Moore: Did each member of your

family receive a copy of that letter?

Mr. CHALK: The hen. member acts like a kid in short pants at the moment. I shall tell him; I have nothing to hide.

Anybody can read this letter. In the last paragraph it says-

"You are invited to apply for up to 2,500 shares." Mr. Bromley: Is that a circular?

Mr. CHALK: It is the type of letter sent out by Ian Potter to his clients.

Mr. Hanlon: You said that, in the first paragraph, the letter says, "At the request of the Chairman."

Mr. CHALK: The hon. member is trying to misconstrue the issue. This is the usual type of letter. I could produce dozens of these letters from various companies in which I have an investment.

Mr. Hanlon: That is what we are worried about-Thiess Bros., and so on.

Mr. CHALK: I have said I have no shares in Thiess Bros., so the hen. member can send his boy out to make a second check if he likes.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Baroona had an opportunity to make a speech and hon. members listened to him with rapt attention and without many interjections. I warn the hen. member that if he continues to interject while the Treasurer is speaking, I shall deal with him under Standing Order No. 123A.

Mr. Hanlon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will not interject. I thought the Minister heard me ask if he had any shares in Thiess Bros.

Mr. CHALK: I am afraid I have said I have not.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! It is very unruly conduct, I might mention.

Mr. CHALK: As I said, this is not an unusual letter. It is the usual type of letter sent out by a broker. I also received with it a prospectus, and I have that copy from which I tore out the back sheet fo r returning. I was allowed to take up the shares myself, or nominate. I believe that any married person of my age in this House would be looking at the position of his estate. Consequently I nominated my wife, my son and my daughter for the total number of shares involved. Now I am accused of receiving preferential shares.

Let us look at the matter of preferential shares. There were 13,000,000 shares made available by the company, and they were placed at a premium. The company would receive the amount set out, namely, $1.40 a share, on application. The whole of the share interests were handed over to a broker or brokers. It is not for me to know what brokers were included, other than Ian Potter. I am not going to deny that possibly a company, when making a share issue, indicates to its brokers people with whom it is associated and who it believes will invest in it. Consequently I received an offer of 2,500 shares at the same price at which they were offered to every other person who took them up on the day the company was floated. Every person who took shares paid the same amount for them. What happened to the shares after they hit the market was entirely up to the public. So far as the company is concerned, it put its shares on the market at a price, and it received that price.

I have not sold the shares. If I did, admittedly I would have made a profit. But every share issued by Comalco was sold by the company at the same price that I and my colleagues in the Ministry paid. If the shares had been offered to us without a premium, hon. members opposite would be entitled to call them preferential shares. Any accountant knows the meaning of "preferential shares", and these shares carry no preference whatsoever. They are shares for which we paid the full price. (Opposition laughter.)


Hon. members opposite can laugh, but they cannot get away from facts. That is my side of the issue.

My time is running out, and I want to indicate to the Chamber the basis on which the shares were issued. I was not to know nor were any of my colleagues who received offers to know, . how many shares were going to others. I t IS true that some brokers in B.risbane complained because they were not grven an opportunity to send out the same type of letter to their selected customers as was sent to me. That is one point that has caused this argument. When a company is being floated, the shares <:!re placed in the hands of a broker. Any mem?er wh? has had any major share dealings with a broker in Brisbane will know only too well that when a float is coming up the broker will attempt to keep the business of his clients. He is entitled to do that, and that is why I have frequently received letters saying, "You can have 300 shares", or "You can have 500 shares" in a company. If Comalco had been a small company, a little organisation with a capital of only about $500,000, I believe that perhaps there would be some basis on which I would feel that I was not entitled to take shares. But when I knew there were 13,000,000 shares and that there would be at least 40,000 shareholders-41 000 is the figt;re mentioned in th~ Press-fo; my part, I beheved that any application by me, and also ?Y man):' others, was not indiscreet. My point rs that It was an undertaking that we were entitled ~o enter into; it was an undertaking entered mto on the same basis as anyone else, not as Senator Georges said.

Mr. Lloyd: He seems to worry you.

Mr. CHALK: No. As far as I am concerned, a man who changes his name. and will not own the name of his father does not mean much to me .

I should like to answer one or two things that the Leader of the Opposition said. H e said that only six Cabinet Ministers were offered shares.

Mr. Houston: I said that we knew of six.

Mr. CHALK: H ow do you know? You only know because six took shares.

Mr. Houston: Are you suggesting that some others have got them?

Mr: CHALK: No, I am not suggesting anythmg. I am saying that it is a matter entirely for each Cabinet Minister. If Cabinet Ministers had shares offered to them and rejected them, I do not believe it is any business of mine or this House. If a person received an offer from a sharebroker and he turned it down, that is his business not mine. I have never asked other Ministers whether they have.

From my IXJint of view, the whole matter has been based on the desire of certain people to do only one thing, that is, to

2

try to create in the minds of the people of Australia an impression that there is something suspicious, something corrupt, about Ministers of the Crown. It does not apply only in Queensland. The A.L.P. stirred up similar trouble in Western Australia; it has stirred up similar trouble, or attempted to, in New South Wales. My colleagues and I have taken the shares in our own names. No-one can tell me that I could not have taken these shares in the name of a nominee company. I am not such a big dill as that. As far as I am concerned, every share that I hold in any company in Australia or overseas is in my own name, not in the name of any company. I give that assurance to the H ouse.

lVIr. Hanlon: What are you investing overseas for? The Premier talked about investing in Queensland.

Mr. CHALK: As far as I am concerned, I said "or overseas". One can become involved in a concern in Australia that has money invested overseas. If the hon. member knew anything about it, he would know that. If he is to become Treasurer in future, he will have to learn.

I have nothing to hide relative to my dealings in shares, and I believe that that also is the position of my colleagues. F or my part, I appreciate the fact that the Opposition brought this matter forward so that I could say to the people of Queensland that the dealings we have had with Comalco have been fair and above board. The shares have been purchased at the price at which anyone else would have purchased them. They are regarded as being a good risk, I know; on the other hand, they are share dealings in which any person is entitled to take part. I do not believe that because I have been elected a member of Parliament or because I am a member of Cabinet I have lost my citizenship. I do not believe that I am any different from anyone out in the street. However, I believe that there is one thing in my oath of office that is all-important, and that is honesty. As far as I am concerned, while I am a member of this Assembly I will endeavour to carry out my responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown and as a member of Parliament honestly, fairly and in the interests of the people of Queensland.

Mr. MELLOY (Nudgee) (4.40 p.m.): The Treasurer has at least paid the House the courtesy of making some reference to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. We cannot say the same thing for the Premier who, throughout his speech, very carefully avoided the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Baroona.

The Treasurer has rather committed himself and members of the Cabinet by saying that the shareholdings of Cabinet Ministers are not the business of this House. I think


that in this regard he has shown a great deal of contempt not only for the House but for the people of Queensland, because every Cabinet Minister has a prime responsibility to the members of this House and to the people of Queensland. It is well known that the lives of members of Parliament are, to a great extent, or should be, an open book to the people of the State. T here should be no suggestion of any impropriety in the conduct of Cabinet Ministers or of any member of Parliament, either insid e or outside of the H ouse. As I see it, the Treasurer has held the House in contempt in saying that the holding of Cabinet shares is no t the business of th is House.

Mr. Sherrington: Yet he said that his life is an open book.

Mr. MELLOY: As the hon. member for Salisbury says, he claims that h is life is an open book.

In his speech, the Premier entirely avoided the terms of the motion moved by the Opposition, and on other occasions he has said that what he does in relation to shares is his own business . That is not an atti tude that the Premier of any State should take; he is supposed to be the guiding figure in th is Parl iament and everything that he does should be above reproach and open io criticism and investigation by members of the Parliament.

In the matter of this shareholding by Cabinet members in this State, I think it would be well to consider the Ministers who have received or bought these shares. The general principle of members holding shares is a very vital one. The Treasurer has said that Cabi net Ministers are no different from any other member of Parliament, and that the Opposition's motion should not have been restricted to Ministers. He cla ims that if we were "fair dinkum" and sincere we should have included all members of Parl iament_ That is not the fact. Ministers in the Cabinet are in an entirely different category from back-bench members of Parliament. They do not enjoy, shall I say, the looseness that is applicable to back-benchers.

Cabinet Ministers have a special responsibility in th is Parliament. Back-bench members do not deal or negotiate with industria l concerns in regard to the establishment of industry in the State. Ministers negotiate with the heads of any concerns that wish to establish the!flselves in this State. In fact, on many occasiOns the Treasurer has boasted that he has gone overseas and negotiated with indust rial concerns who wish to establish themselves in Queensland . That is not the prerogative of any back-bench member, and therefore he is not open to the same blandishments and pressures as a member of the Ca binet. That is why we moved that the restriction should be placed on Cabinet: Ministers. We want to ensure that any negotiations between the Government and business are not influenced by any favours or offers that are made by business organisations .

It would be well if we were to look at Comalco's attitude relative to those Ministers who have accepted the shares. Why is it that certain persons were offered shares and accepted them? Why were different amounts offered? The answer is that pressure had to be the greatest on certain portfolios. We must ask ourselves why particular Ministers were offered certain numbers of shares, and if we go through the list we take the Treasurer first . The people in Comalco would ask themselves, "What do we need from the Government of Queensland? We need the co-operation of the Treasurer in providing funds for projects that will assist us to establ ish our industry and to fu lfi l our aims in this State." F irs t of all the company must get on side with the Treasurer, and that is what it has done.

Another problem that confronts the company is the location of its mining operations. I t is mining on the Aboriginal reserve at Weipa, consequently that will involve an infringement of certain r ights of the Abongines in that area. Whom does the company approach on tha t issue? None other than the Minister for Aboriginal Affai rs, Mr. Hewitt ; consequently he is made a substantial offer of shares in the company.

Comalco has esablished a refinery at Gladstone and it faces certain problems associated ' with that refinery. One of them is housing for its employees. The housing must be provided by the Queensland Housing Commission. Who is in charge of the Queensland Housing Commission? None other than the M inis ter for Works and Housing, Mr. H odges; consequently he in tu rn is made an offer of preferential shares, and he accepts a parcel of those shares .

In addition to housing the company's employees at Gladstone there is the matter of hospitalisation of its employees. Let me remind hon. members that the hospital at Gladstone is in very poor condition and that , as the demand on hospital services becomes greater, preference must be given to the establishment of a new hospital at Gladstone . Who is the Minister involved? It is all right for the Treasurer to laugh, but these Ministers are the ones who accepted preferent ial shares from Comalco. Something must be behind the company's move, because the rank-and-fi le members were not offered this preferential treatment. Of course, they had nothing to contribute to Comalco and the establishment and promotion of that company.

As the Premier was the most influential member of Cabinet he had to be appeased. However, it was known that he has little regard for money at this stage; he has no need to be concerned, but there was a domestic influence. They felt they had to get on side with Mum, therefore the shares were allocated to the Premier's wife.

Perhaps the Minister for Industrial Deve!opment did not have so much to contn bute, but as he was involved in industrial


de\ elopment it could be that he would feel a litt le upset if he were not to receive similar t reatment. I t was felt that if the Minister for Industrial Development was to be kept from squealing he should be given an issue of these shares.

Mr. Campbell: How many was I offered?

Mr. MELLOY: Very few. The Minister was well down the list.

Mr. Campbeil: How many was I offered?

Mr. MEI"LOY: About 400 or 200 or something like that. The Mi~ister was ' not worth considering; he was very low down on the list.

These are the matters that we must consider. It is alarming to the public to find that certain Cabinet members believe they are ent itled to take these shares fo r services rendered or for services to be rendered. No defence whatever has been raised by the T reasurer or any other Cabinet Minister about the taking of these shares.

The disreputable facet of these transactio ns is that members of Cabinet think so li ttle of themselves that they are prepared to take shares from a company which has direct dealings with the Government in promoting its development in Queensland. The Opposition feels that some restrictions should be imposed by this Parliament on the acceptance of shares. That can be done only by legislation. It is our opinion that legisla tion should be introduced to prevent the holding of shares in any company by any Cabinet Min ister.

Hon. F. A. CAMPBELL (Aspley-Minister for Industrial Development) (4.53 p.m.) : There is much confusion in the public mind over this issue. Members of the public are confused because of the greatly varying points of view expressed about Ministers hold ing shares. The highlight of the "Courier-Mail" editorial of 11 June in referring to this matter was that "While Ministers' integrity is not in question, thei r discretion is." In "The Sunday Mail" of 13 June, Mr. David Bray expressed h is views, and the highlight of his comments was-

"The worst thing about this business of the Cabinet Ministers and Comalco shares seems to me to be that some of our Ministers just don't care about public opinion."

The fi rst reaction of the Leader of the Opposition was to say what he said today, namely, that there are plenty of Government and semi-Government issues in which people could invest rather than in large companies. A week or so later, possibly when he had reflected on his hasty comment, and in order to bring it into line with his party's thinking, he stated, as reported in the Press, that Ministers should divest themselves entirely of their investments.

The Deputy Premier dealt ably with t.he utterances of Senator Georges, who mamtained that a M inister lost his impartiality once he had a pecuniary interest in a company.

I responded to the invitation that I received from Ian Potter & Co. on 17 April to apply for up to 1,200 shares. In this regard, the comments made by members of the Opposition about . the offer made to me are indicative of therr wrong assumptions throughout this debate. As the Treasurer pointed ou t, this offer was submitted at the request of the chairman of Comalco Ltd. , M r. Don Hibberd . I regarded the offer as a gesture of goodwill, which is the common pract ice, throughout this land, . of persons in a ll walks of life. There rs no need for me to remind the H ouse that race clubs make a sim ilar gesture to members of Parliament by ~endin !! them complimentary passes to the races which entitle hon. members to attend whenever there is a race day in Brisbane and the R.N.A. offers hon . members complimentary passes to the Exhib~tion .

Mr. O'Donnell: That shows how much you know.

Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. member gets a complimentary pass to the Exhibition.

Mr. O'Donnell: N o, we do not-to the dinner.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Well, what is that?

Mr. O'Donnell: It is not an invitation.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I would say, in the light of the attitude adopted. by me.mbers of the Opposition, that acceptmg an mvrt~tion to a banquet given by a company rs in the same category.

On 29 Apri l, I responded to the circular I received from Ian Potter & Co. on 17 April inviting me to apply for up to 1,200 shares by taking up smly 700 shares, because that was all .the ready cash I had at the time. As the Leader of the Opposition said I could have had recourse to my bank overdraft, but I do not believe in borrowing money to invest it. Therefore, I _t<::ok up 700 shares and let 500 shares r.emammg lapse. I did this quite openly and del~berately , and in the full knowledge that thrs would provoke a controversy. I have never heard so much cant and hypocrisy expressed as has been raised relative to this issue. I did not regard this as an attempt by Comalco to c~rry favour with me, and anybody who thmks he can curry favour with me in this manner is wasting his time .

Mr . Davies: Why do you think Wally Rae said that he had been very indiscreet?

Mr. CAMPBELL: The Minister for Local Government can speak for himself, as I am doing. When the hon. member for Baroona asked me if we acted collectively, I asked him deliberatelv if he thought we acted in cohesion. I -did that of my own volition because I really believe that the question


of ministerial shareholdings needs to be examined in the light of day, and I am very happy that the issue is now being discussed.

As I am an investor and not a share trader, naturally my estate will benefit. But as I paid approximately six times the par value, my expected annual yield from the investment will be between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. Fred Campbell as a person will therefore benefit financially to a much lesser extent than he would have if he had invested in a State Electricity Commission loan or similar issue.

In relation to the repeated suggestions, amounting almost to instructions, from Opposition members that Cabinet Ministers should not have any investments at all, it is more than passing strange that on 12 June, when this furore was at its height, the Southern Electric Authority sent me a circular signed by the Chief Executive Officer, which was very similar to the circular I received from Ian Potter & Co. seven weeks before concerning the Comalco offer. That circular stated-

"The loan opens on Monday, June 22nd. We are giving you this preliminary advice so that you may be ready with your decision to invest as soon as you receive the prospectus."

Not being satisfied with that, they followed it up with a second letter on 26 June. I infer from that that the directors of the Southern Electric Authority are apparently not concerned if a Minister of the Crown has a financial interest in their organisation, which has considerable discussion and negotiation with the Government.

I believe that in the matter of the Comalco shares I practised what I preach, which is what I always endeavour to do . I constantly advocate in discussions with overseas companies that they make available certain sections of issues for Australian investment.

Much has been said about impairment of my impartiality of judgment. My share of the issued and paid-up capital of Comalco, being 700 shares out of 117,000,000, amounts to .00059 per cent. If I relate my interest to the 10 per cent. that has been offered for Austral ian public subscription, my holding is .00538 per cent. in a company that does about 23 per cent. of its business in Queensland. If I, in an avaricious manner, consider at any time that I have dealings with Comalco how much those dealings will benefit my personal interest, I think even the hon . member for South Brisbane, who is a pretty astute person, would realise that the benefit to me personally would be infinitesimal.

Mr. Hanlon: If you had sold the shares on the first day, the profit would have been half your parliamentary salary for the year. Put it in those terms.

Mr. CAMPBELL: The whole of the allegation in ~his debate has been based on the profits that a person v.:ould ma~e as a result of his disposal of this share Issue. I repeat what I said earlier: I am not a share trader; I am an investor.

The other aspect I wish to mention is that when I was privileged to become a Minister of the Crown I was obliged, in accordance with the law of the land, to .take an oath which stated, among other things-

" I do swear that I will, according to the best of my ability, skill, and knowledge, well and faithfully execute the Office and Trust (which I hold) of the State of Queensland and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia, and that I will in all things honestly, zealously, and impartially discharge and .. exercise t.he duties, powers, and authontJes appertaming to me in the said Office."

I regard that oath as a total commitment which cannot be qualified. I wish to say also, without trying to parade my honesty, that there are no degrees of honesty. There might be degrees of justice. I mention that because the hon. member for Townsville North said that this morning justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done. The insinuations that have been offered from the Opposition are that I should not only be honest but that I should wear a badge on my lapel saying, "I, Fred Campbell, am honest."

I am not being vindictive in this, but when I recall some of the phrases used by the hon. member for Townsville North I wonder whether some members of the Opposition are using their own yardstick in judging this issue. I say to all member~ of the Opposition who have made allegat~ons of dishonesty in this regard, or suggestiOns of dishonest practice by Ministers in benefi ting themselves in this matter, and who believe that the oath which a Minister takes should be qualified in relation to pecuniary interest that if they consider that the only qualific~tion of the oath of a Minister should relate to his shareholdings, they hold a very narrow view of integrity. It would appear that memb~rs ~f the . Opposition believe that a pecumary mterest m a matter is the only manner in which a Minister can be influenced. I invite hon. members to dispute my assertion that there are many more things in life that can be brought to bear which would influence a person more than pecuniary interest.

Mr. Sherrington: You know all the rackets, do you?

Mr. CAMPBELL: If that is the way in which the hon. member for Salisbury approaches his parliamentary obligations--

Mr. Sherrington: That is the impression you were giving. I have never bought shares in my life.

Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY} Suspension of Standing Orders 37

Mr. CAMPBELL: What a sterile business experience the hon. member has had. I point out to hon. members that quite a few members of this House have approached me on behalf of constituents on matters that could be regarded as being in a category similar to that in which members of the Opposition have placed the issue of these shares; that is, the question of getting some preferential treatment-approaches to get off the hook someone who has breached a law in a technical manner. Do not hon. members think that this is a far more difficult decision to make than considering one's own pecuniary interest in a company with which one is dealing? In such a matter it becomes a case of personal pressure. On several occasions I should have liked to help hon . members of this House in cases of a technical breach of the law, and in other cases I should have liked to help hon. members because of personal acquaintanceship, but was unable to do so.

Mr. Sherrington: I have never asked you.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I did not say that the hon. member had, but several members have, and I want to say again that I believe that the pressures of personal acquaintanceship, and more so personal friendship, are far greater on one than the lure of avarice. I need not go through the whole range of personal pressures that can be placed on one. I do not usually refer to the utterances of the hon. member for Townsville South, but I think he canvassed these th ings to good advantage this afternoon.

Mr. Bennett: You are getting to the bottom of the barrel when you have to quote him.

Mr. CAMPBELL: In such pressures I agree with the attitude of the Premier of Western Australia, Sir David Brand, who saidand I think I paraphrase his words correctly -"As Ministe rs, we are always under suspicion." He dismissed out of hand any suggestion that he had committed an impropriety in accepting these shares.

Mr. Hanlon: Sir Henry Bolte said that he would not touch them, and he is no blushing, retiring type.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I might refer the hon. member for Baroona to utterances by Sir Henry Bolte 18 months ago which were completely at variance with those he made the other day.

I wonder why we have suddenly got this holier-than-thou attitude from members of the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition. When I asked how long it was since the Labour Party had changed its policy in requiring Ministers to divest themselves of any shareholdings, he said, "Just before the last election." Apparently a new broom is sweeping through.

I conclude by saying that no set of rules, however weii devised, will insulate the office of a Minister against corruption. It depends

entirely upon the individual. I quote what the Prime Minister of Canada, Honourable Pierre Trudeau, said quite recently~

"I believe in the last analysis a human beina in the privacy of his own mind has the exclusive authority to choose his own scale of values and decide whi~,h forces will take precedence over others.

Mr. BENNETI (South Brisbane) (5.14 p.m.): I propose t? be ~ather brief in my submissions on this subJect because I am satisfied in my own mind that my Leader and Deputy Leader have put up a most convincing and persuasive a~gument as to why we should accept the motion now before the House. I was prepared to keep an open mind on the matter until I heard the defence of the Premier and the Treasurer, and their prevarications and equivocations. Their failure to deal with the crux of the motion convinced me that they either did not understand the principle involved in the motion or did not want to know and wi~hed to continue with their rather suspect practices, which apparently this Cabinet has been engaging in for some time.

The first hon . member who spoke on behalf of the Government and came to t~e defence of the Premier said rthat he did believe that the Ministers were guilty of accepting bribes. Whilst I agree. with his contention, I do not have to submit my own personal opinion on that matter ?~cau~e that contention is fortified by a dec!Slon m the House of Lords and reported in 1951. An argument was put forward by the Crown on behalf of the Government-and the House of Lords accepted the argument-that when a servant of the Crown-and a Minister is a servant of H er Majesty-accepts material gain and unjust rewards in the course of his office he is guilty of accepting bribes. That argument was put to the House of Lords in the case of Reading v. The Attorney-General, which is reported in Volume 1 of the 1951 All England Reports at page 617.

I read from that page-''The Crown contended that the appel

lant was a servant of the Crown and that the moneys in question represented bri?es which he had received from accompanymg loaded lorries in and about Cairo whilst wearing His Majesty's uniform."

The Ministers of this Cabinet, virtually wearing the uniform of the Crown as advisers to Her Majesty, have taken advantage of the1r office in order to accept these bnbes from the Comalco company and, therefore, have been guilty of corrpption.

It was held by the House of Lords, the highest court in England, that any position that enabled a servant to earn money by its use gave the master the right to receive the money so earned even though it was earned by a criminal act. This right was derived from the implied promise by the servant, made at the time when the contract of employment was entered into, that he would


account to his master for any moneys that he might receive by reason of his employment, and it w.1s not open to the servant to set up his own \\Tong as a defence to his master's claim.

It is quite clear that Mr. Chalk, the priYate citizen, or his wife and children, and the various Cabinet i'vlinisters as private citizens, certainly would not have been offered this bribe as private citizens because the company could not expect any return from private citizens. These shares have been referred to , perhaps loosely, as prefe rential shares, but the meaning of that term is quite clear and manifest to hon. members. It means that these shares were offered to Cabinet on a preferential basis, and the members of the Cabinet certainly took advantage of that preference . Therefore, when a material and unjust enrichment is rec-eived by a servant of the Crown-and a Minister is a servant of the Crown-that servant should be obliged to disgorge the profits that he received, that is , the income, or alternatively on the sale of the shares he should be made to forfeit those m<;>neys to the Crown.

One hon. member- I think it was the hon. member for Baroona-referred to the fact that apparently the Attorney-General did not accept any of these shares. I suppose that there wou ld be one good reason for that. It is J1js duty and obligation, if he is carrying out his oath of office properly-we have heard so much about ministerial oaths of office-as relator for the people on behalf of Her Majesty, to take action against his confreres in the Cabinet to see that these shares are forfeited to the Crown.

Lord Porter adopted some of the suggestions made by Mr. Justice Denning in the Court of First Instance, who held that the using by the appellant of his office as a servant of the Crown was the sole cause of his obtaining the money, which he did dishonestly, and although the Crown had suffered no loss the money belonged to the Crown as his master. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that a fiduciary relationship existed between the Crown and the appellant regarding the use of the uniform. Lord Porter, in the House of Lords, in upholding the decision of Mr. Justice Denning to the effect that it was money that really was owned by the Crown, adopted this passage from an earlier judgment when he said-

"In my judgment, it is a principle of law that, if a servant takes advantage of his service and violates his duty of honesty and good faith to make a profit for himself, in the sense that the assets of which he has control, the facilities which he enjoys, or the position which he occupies, are the real cause of his obtaining the money as distinct from merely affording the opportunity for getting it, that is to say, if they play the predominant part in his obtaining the money, then he is accountable for it to the master. It matters not

that the master has not lost any profit nor suffered any damage, nor does it matter that the master could not have done the act himself. If the servant has unjustly enriched himself by virtue of his service without his master's sanction, the law says that he ought not be allowed to keep the money, but it shall be taken from him and given to his master, because he got it solely by reason of the position wh ich he occupied as a servant of his master."

In view of the portents in this debate, I do not propose to quote further from Reading v. The Attorney-General. Suffice it to say that there is ample authority in that report to clearly convince the people of Queensland, if the y r.::ad it, that the Queensland Cabinet has been guilty of accepting bribes, and that the shares they now hold should, on the action of the Attorney-General himself, be forfeited to the Crown.

I have no commission here today, nor for that matter any great desire, to defend Senator Georges and other people who have been attacked personally by the Treasurer. On many occasions in this House when I have referred, fo r instance, to the former Commissioner of Police, the Treasurer has been the first to castigate me and denigrate my argument by claiming that I was ~ttacking somebody who did not have the nght t.o defend himself. I suggest that on th1s occasion the Treasurer has conducted a very CO\\ ardly attack on Senator Georges, a Federal parliamentarian. It is significant to remember that the P rime Minister, Mr. Gorton did not see fit to attack him for the remark~ that he made. Obviously by his silence he commended and condoned the remarks. He has al ready told Cabinet members that they should not have taken the shares in Comalco, and he is the Liberal Party Leader in Australia.

I certainly believe in the principle, which was distorted by the Minister who spoke before me, that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. In other words, we do not merely do justice; we must make it quite obvious to the people that justice is being done. We must not only be honest but we have to make it manifestly obvious. In order to preserve t~e respect and rich traditions of democratic instrumentalities we have not only to be honest but we have to convince the people that we are honest.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I assure the Premier and other Cabinet Ministers that the people of Queensland do not b.elieve that he and his colleagues are honest m these share dealings. They can protest as much as they like, but they are not giving the people the impression that they are honest.

I have a prime example to quote relative to that matter namely, the recent tragedy which occurred' in Queen Street when, owing to a gas explosion, 48 people were injured


and one unfortunate girl was killed. If there was any negligence on the part of the Brisbane Gas Co., it should be called up~n, in the interests of justice and public poucy--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is completely out of order. He is not discussing the matter before the House.

JYir. BENNETT: That is the point I am trymg to make. The Premier has said that he refuses to table the police report on that tragedy.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. BENNEIT: And everybody in Brisbane is saying, "What shares has the Cabinet got in the Brisbane Gas Co.?" Why is the report not being tabled?

Mr. Chalk: You know why it is not being tabled.

Mr. BENNETT: It is perfectly obvious that the Government has an obligation--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for South Brisbane should realise that a coronia! inquiry is presently being conducted mto that matter, and I think he should be very careful about what he says. It is not that the matter is sub judice, but he should at least pay regard to the fact that an inquiry is being conducted.

Mr. HENNETT: I accept your ruling, and I certamly accept your belief that the matter is not sub judice.

The Treasurer :said that if Cabinet discusses a matter in which there is a ministerial mterest, Ministers indicate their interest and certainly do not vote on the matter. Howev~r, at the rate this Cabinet is going, we WI ,l reach the stage, when matters important to the development of Queensland come before <:;abinet for serious consideration, that there wlll not be a quorum because more than half o~ the_ Ministe~s apparently have a shareholdmg mterest m companies that have direct dealings with the Governm ent.

In any case, the Treasurer's assertions are not shared by the Premier, so that one or the other IS not telling Parliament the truth. I listened very carefully to the Treasurer when he told us that that is the practice and procedure in Cabinet. However that is in direct contradiction and contrast to what the Prem!er told the "Telegraph" on 15 June . of this year when a question was put to him about whether Cabinet Ministers should tell one another of their share-holdings. He replied-

"That reminds me of what you expect in Soviet Russia. I tell Ron, he tells me and we both spend our time watching each other over our shoulders. I regard this atmosphere of distrust as an insult."

I presume by "Ron" he means the Minister for Mines. In other words the Premier said that he believes that Cabinet Ministers

should directly and deliberately conceal their shareholdings regardless of whether the matter under discussion concerns a company in which they have large shareholding interests. That is what he told the "Telegraph".

Mr. Chalk: That is not true. You are twisting it with your legal mind.

Mr. BENNE'IT: As my Leader says, he told them a lot more than that.

Mr. Chalk: No-one declares the number of shares he holds.

Mr. BENNE'IT: If I answer the T;·easurer I will get into trouble , so I ask him to behave himself.

T he Premier made it clear that he was not prepared to reveal his own shareholdings to the public or to fellow members of Cabinet. When asked if he would reveal them, he is reported as saying, directly and deliberately, "No fear. I won't reveal my investments. I won't reveal them to anyone." T hat includes the Treasurer.

Mr. Chalk: He will tell me whether he has shares in a company.

Mr. BENNE'IT: He continued , "I think it is an insult to ask any Premier or Cabinet Mini ster to do so." So we are getting two conflicting reports to this Parliament from the Leader and the Deputy Leader of this State. They cannot both be telling the truth. T will not sav that one or the other is a liar. Of course they cannot be ad idem on any subject.

The Treasurer repeatedly and untruthfully claims that I am never here. Yet the Premier said today that I am here day after day asking questions. In this case the Premier is telling the truth. He said I asked questions relative to the Pol ice Force. I do that, but my questions do not concern matters in which I am engaged unless I obtain certain findings from a court and unless the Commissioner of the day refuses to take action on those findings. Irrespective of whether I have or have not be·en engaged in such cases, it is my duty professionally and as a parliamentarian to see that justice is done and decency upheld . I am happy to say of the present Commissioner that he has been prepared to act on decisions made by courts, and that is a very pleasing feature of his administration.

The most damning indictment of the Premier today is the fact that quite clearly he allowed what little evidence he had in his defence to be presented by his own advocate here and elsewhere, namely, the hon. member for Townsville South. When he used him as his defence counsel in Parliament, I was satisfied that he was guilty of all the allegations, charges and accusations made against him. If he had any sensible defence, he would not have had a man of such a low calibre as the hon . member for Townsville South come to his aid as


Premier of the State. However, the hon. member for Townsville South was put up as No. 1 speaker not only for Cabinet but also for the Government parties . It was reminiscent of the time when the Premier paid for an extensive advertisement in "Sunday Truth" which described the hon . member for Townsville South as one of the best members in the State. They are playing mates with each o ther. When the Premier was being attacked, as he was last year, over his oil shareholdings, it was again the hon. member for Townsville South y, ho was called upon by the Premier to defend him and his interests.

Surprised eyebrows were also raised when the Premier attacked Laver. I have no brief for Laver and no real desire to spring to his defence, but the hypocrisy and insincerity of the Premier again manifested itself because he did not make it clear that Laver is employed by Jacaranda Press, which carries out work for the Liberal Party and the Country Party.

No doubt I could also produce much evidence to show that the Premier is speaking hypocritically in regard to share dealings. I can produce evidence, and a lot of it, to show that, because of the exposure of the Comalco share dealings, Cabinet has been plac·ed in a very embarrassing position and has had to reverse decisions made as recently as March, 1968. I refer to, and propose to quote from, a letter over the signature of the Premier on the matter of whether a person can judicially and objectively deal with a matter if he has a shareholding interest. In March, 1968, the Premier did not think he could, and he took certain action against two detectives because of that view.

I quote from the original letter dated 12 March, 1968, over the Premier's signature in which he referred to the shareholding interests of the wives of Detectives Mahon and Hopper. It is a long letter of about 3! foolscap pages. This is what the Premier said-

"As regards the two Police officers it would appear that their wives have 500 B class ordinary shares each ... "

It was the wives who held the shares, and they had no voting rights. He went on to say-

in a company, namely, Brisbane Monte de Piete Pty. Ltd. which carries on business at Rex Arcade, Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley. The Directors of this Company are ... "

Who the directors are does not concern the House, I suppose. The letter continued-

"However, it is considered that it is not desirable that members of the Pawnbrokers Squad should be interested even indirectly in any Pawn-broker's business . The two Detectives have been transferred to another branch of the service."

They were in fact transferred to uniform. because the Minister at that time deemed that they could not possibly act honestly as

detectives in the pawnbrokers squad because of the small shareholdings of their wives. How does he reconcile that now with his claim that Cabinet Ministers holding direct preferential shares-! use the term "preferential" in the manner in which my Leader and Deputy Leader have used ita rather copious supply of preferential shares, given to them because of their position as Ministers of the Crown, can deal with companies in an objective fashion?

Of course, the Minister had to eat his words. He became embarrassed when the wives of these detectives revealed to "Sunday T ruth" in July this year what had happened to their husbands and the money they had lost in certain working loadings when they were transferred to uniform. In fact, it was a punitive transfer. What happened? Because of the embarrassing position in which the Government found itself, the present Minister in charge of police had to transfer the two policemen, Mahon and H opper, back to plainclothes as detectives. The argument was "What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You have found us out."

Incidentally, it was not Senator Georges who originally revealed this information about Comalco shares . It was a Melbourne newspaper-! think "The Herald"-and I certainly raised it in Queensland before Senator <Jeorges did.

I was amazed to hear the Treasurer of this State, the man appointed more than anybody else to encourage confidence in economic investment in the development of Queensland, the man controlling the economy of the State and endeavouring to find further investors for the State, admit frankly today that he invests portion of his money-he did not say what portion, but I expect that it is rather a tidy percentage of his incomenot in Queensland but overseas. I think that is rather a damning admission for the Treasurer of this State to make.

Hon. R. E. CAMM (WhitsundayMinister for Mines and Main Roads) (5.38 p.m.): I rise to oppose the motion. I do not think that even the Leader of the Opposition realises the implications of the letter that resulted in the motion being moved. He said-

". . . to consider the desirability of introducing legislation to forbid Cabinet Mi nisters and members of their immediate family from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the Government through a Member of Cabinet."

How many companies in Queensland would be involved in dealings with the Government? Almost every company.

Mr. Houston: That is right. So what?

Mr. CAMM: The A.L.P. would prohibit a Cabinet Minister and members of his immediate family from holding shares in any company in Queensland. If it takes

Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JULY) Suspension of Standing Orders 41

that attitude, what a sterile type of member we will have in Parliament, men who are not interested in any commercial enterprise in this State, men who have not the ability to build up a bit of capital to invest in commercial enterprises developing this State.


Mr. CAMM: Do hon. members opposite say that I should relinquish my shares in a sugar mill because I am a Cabinet Minister? Do they mean to say that a man who has shares in a co-operative enterprise should relinquish those shares because he is a Cabinet Minister? They are all companies operating in this State. That principle can be inferred from the letter that the Leader of the Opposition submitted to Mr. Speaker. I do not accept the Opposition's view that a Minister or any member of Parliament should come under any suspicion whatever. There is nothing wrong or sinful in a Minister buying or owning shares.

Mr. Houston: You could make a million out of it and you know it.

Mr. CAMM: Ministers are accepted as honest people in the community. Surely they do not automatically become di~honest when they buy shares. There are many ways, if a Minister is dishonest, in which he can be influenced by outside interests.

Mr. Sherrington: You compromise yourself once you accept them.

Mr. CAMM: Ministers in all States of the Commonwealth and in Parliaments overseas have been doing this for years.

Mr. Houston: Name one outside of Queensland.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. CAMM: The hon. member can go and find out for himself if he has the ability. The Labour Party is trying to make political capital out of the recent Comalco share issue by claiming that Ministers should not have bought shares in this company, a company that has been operating in Queensland for more than 13 years.

Mr. Houston: And paying a lousy 10 cents a ton royalty.

Mr. CAMM: The Leader of the Opposition speaks about 10 cents a ton royalty. Mr. Speaker, if you go through "Hansard" for last year you will find that the previous Leader of the Opposition claimed full credit for all of the negotiations that had taken place in connection with the Weipa bauxite deposits right up to the time the product was to be placed on the docks. Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways.

Now, let us look at the ramifications of this company, and the extent of the company's activities and interests. Comalco Limited is the parent company for the Comalco group of companies for which it

provides financial, management and marketing services. It also sponsors and participates in consortium activities associated with the general operation of an integrated aluminium industry.

Wholly owned subsidiaries are: (A) Commonwealth Aluminium Corpora

tion Limited-mining bauxite at Weipa.

(B) Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd.producing alumina and aluminium in T asmania.

(C) Comalco Products Pty. Ltd.-producing aluminium semi-fabricated products in Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth and which also operates Comalco Can Co. in Sydney and Melbourne and Highgate Engineering producing heavy aluminium fabrications at plants in Sydney and Brisbane.

The company is managing agent of, and a 50 per cent. shareholder in, Dampier Salt Limited in Western Australia. Consortium activities with other organisations include:

Queensland Alumina Limited (16 per cent. share);

New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd. (50 per cent. share);

Eurallu.mina S.p.A. which is building and will operate an alumina plant in Sardinia (16! per cent. share); and

Sardanavi S.p.A. which is to build and operate bulk ore carriers to carry bauxite from Weipa to the Eurallumina plant in Sardinia (10 per cent. share).

Clearly, although the Weipa activity is a large and important aspect of Comalco's activities, the company's over-all interests are very widespread and the Weipa activity represents a relatively small proportion of these over-all interests. The most important aspect is the nature and method of arrangements between the company and the Queensland Government in respect of its operations in the W·eipa area. The basic arrangements and rights of the company have been set out in the Commonwealth Aluminium Pty. Ltd. Agreement Act of 1957 and the schedules to that Act setting out details of the agreement. This Act was passed by the Queensland Parliament and given Royal assent on 12 December, 1957-12t years ago.

The agreement is in considerable detail and clearly sets out the rights and responsibilities of the company and of the Queensland Government. Provision is made for amendments to the agreement which may be agreed upon between the company and the Minister and subsequently approved by Order in Council. Any such Order in Council must be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 14 days after publication of the Order in Council if Parliament is sitting. If Parliament is not sitting it must be read within 14 days after Parliament next commences to· sit.

42 Suspension of Standing Orders [22 JuLY) Suspension of Standing Orders

The Act further provides-"If the Legislative Assembly passes a

resolution disallowing any such Proclamation or Order in Council, of which resolution notice has been given at any time within fourteen sitting days of such House after such Proclamation or Order in Council has been laid before it, such Proclamation or Order in Council shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime."

Thus not only have the rights and the responsibilities of the company in respect of the Weipa area been submitted to and approved by Parliament but any future changes deemed necessary or desirable a re also subject to scrutiny, and if considered appropriate by Parliament may be disallowed. T hus there are powerful safeguards against any possibility of a person in public office who might purchase the shares exerting undue influence in favour of the company on any dealings between the company and the Government.

What has been achieved by the encou ragement of the company's activities in Queensland? Given the opportunity to develop the vast bauxi te resources in this area, th e company has more than honoured all of its obligations. The original agreement was basically to give the company the opportunity of fully investigating and determining the feasibi li ty of establishing the large-scale bauxite mining industry, together at least with alumina production if this were feasible also .

By 1965 1 ,000,000 tons of bauxite had been shipped out of Weipa , and by 1967 shipments amounted to 2,500,000 tons for the year. In the same year, by the efforts of the company in obtaining participation of large overseas interests, the initial alumina plant at Gladstone was under production with a capacity of some 600,000 tons a year. This plant is now being expanded to give a total capacity of 1,200,000 tons per year, with plans fo r further expansion to 2,000,000 a year by 1972, thus creating the largest alumina plant in the world. Bauxite production at Weipa is growing rapidly, and shipment in 1969 totalled 5,000,000 tons. Total expenditure by the company at Weipa amounted to some $29,000,000 to the end of 1969 when fac ilities were available to provide fo r extraction and shipment of bauxite at the rate of 7,000,000 tons per year.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! There is too much conversation on both sides of the House.

Mr. CAMM: However, enlargement of the facilities at Weipa was found necessary to meet the growing demand for bauxite, and an annual capacity of 10,500,000 tons is now aimed at. This further expansion is estimated to involve an addit ional in vestment of $43.000,000. At th is stage, to honour its

obligat ions and to provide the opportunity for Australian public participation, the company decided on the public share issue to ra ise some $35,750,000. It also decided that the underwriters, that is, the brokers, should have the right to nominate the allottees of the whole of the public share issue .

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You ruled that the hon. member for South Brisbane could not introduce extraneous matter. T he question before the House deals with the rights or otherwise of the Ministers to hold shares. A rhetoric of what the Comalco company has done is completely erroneous and irrelevant to this debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I am waiting fo r the Minister to tie his argument up with the matter before the House. If he does not proceed to do so I shall have to ask him to continue along different lines .

Mr. CAMM: I was indicating the early history of the company up to the time when it decided to make a public issue. I t clearly indicated that the underwriters should have the right to nominate the alloHees, whic h is not an unusual procedure. This share issue was not a gift or a consideration. It was an opportunity to assist the company in raising capital to expand its activities not only in Queensland but in its other widespread interests throughout the world. T hat it was an oppo rtunity to make a profitable investment appeared almost certain, but not co!llpletely certain in the light of share pnce behaviour at the t ime of the issue.

Most of the part icu lars of the share issue were exp lained by the Treasurer, but I think they bear repeating because there seems . to be some confusion about the shares bemg preference shares. !an Potter & Co., Me lbourne were the underwriters for t he share issue . T here were 13,000,000 shares to be allotted and between 40,000 and 45 ,000 shareholders in Australia and New Zealand received the shares. They received them in the same manner as everyone else in this country. They were written to by the underwri ters and forwarded a prospectus on the back page of which was a form to be fi lled in indicating the number of shares required, and they were required to send the necessary money. Can anyone say that they were preference shares?

Opposition Members: Yes.

Mr. CAMM: There are 40,000-odd shareholders in Australia and New Zealand . The only thing Opposition members are jealous about is that they did not get an offer from the sharebrokers.

Natura lly some of the shares were allotted on a customer-list basi·s, beyond th e contro l of the underwriters. That enabled the company to allot shares to its employees. I understand that most of Comalco's employees were given the right to acquire shares .


Certa inly the employees at Weipa were given that opportunity. I was there recently and found that all the natives employed at Weipa took advantage of the share offer. Opposition members wi ll claim that because they got shares they were given a preference issue and that the company is trying to influence the working capacity of its employees at Weipa.

The shares were 50 cent shares, issued at a premium of $2.25 . The premium is assessed on what the underwriters fee l the market will stand, or what the shares should bring on the open m arket. The price was then $2.75 on acceptance for fully paid shares. Partly paid shares are called contributing ·shares and they were available at $1.40. Those shares had to be fully paid before 31 March, 1971, which meant the payment of an extra $1.35.

Mr. Jensen: How many shares would have been issued if they all got them on the same basis as Mr. Chalk?

Mr. CAMM: 13,000,000 &hares were issued.

Mr. Jensen interjected.

Mr. CAMM: The hon . member can div ide 13,000,000; he can work it out himself. Has he not the ability to work it out?

The people had an opportunity to buy either contributing shares or fully paid shares. This provided an opportunity for Australian and Queensland investors to invest in a company which was developing in the State of Queensland.

Opposition Members inter jected .

Mr. CAMM: An hon. member asked if I was offered shares. I would not te ll anyone if I was offered shares or not. The fact is I did not take any. I have been offered many shares since becoming Minister for Mines. Many of the brokers send prospectuses to me for my perusal. All I have to do is tear off the back page, fill it in, and state how many I want, but I have not done so as yet.

Mr. Houston: Why haven't you done that?

Mr. CAMM: Because I am more interested in developing the land and making something of my own property. Other people have other ways to assist in the development of this State, such as investing in companies that are doing a very good job for Queensland.

The Utah share i·ssue came on to the market at a premium. They were offered to many people in the State and were completely subscribed at $1.85, but they hi t the market at $1.60. Did Opposition members criticise members or Ministers who may have taken those shares? There was no saying that these shares which were made available to the public of Queensland at a premium would open at a higher value than the price at which they were offered

to the people. They could have been like so many share issues which, when put on the market, do not reach the issue price .

I t was claimed that these shares were not available to private citizens. What rot! The brokers indicated that 45,000 people received these shares, and surely, among that 45 ,000, t·here were many other private citizens.

Someone tried to claim that the price for electricity for the aluminium refinery would be infl uenced by this. T he price to be paid by the company for this electricity will be decided after consultation with the Commonwealth Government, which is putting up the bulk of the money.

T he Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, through his director and Treasury advisers, took up 40,000 shares on behalf of the Department of Aboriginal and Is land Affairs. He was immediately called on to appear on the television programme "Today Tonight" to justify his action and to prove that he did no t jeopardise his department's money. What would have been said about him if the shares had not reached that price on the market and he had not been game to support his action by investing some of his own money? He had sufficient faith in it to put in departmental money and some of his own.

I think that the Opposition was merely trying to introduce a red herring at the start of this session of Parliament in an effort to remove the criticism that could be justifiably levelled at them at the takeover of the A.L.P . by the Communist-dominated Trades and Labour Council which is their political boss and directs them on what they should do. Later in this session I shall disclose the name of every member of the Communist party who bosses the Opposition members and tells them what to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

Mr. Sherrington: I rose before the Premier.

Mr. Houston: And before he sat down.

Mr. Sherrington; Surely the debate is not to be gagged!

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! When the Premier or a Minister rises, I have to inquire at least whM he requires.

Mr. Sherrington: We have known for the last hour that it would be gagged.

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah -Premier): I move-

"That the question be now put. "

Mr. HOUSTON: I r ise to a point of order. Under what Standing Order has the Premier, who has spoken to this debate, the right to move that the question be now put?

44 Suspension of Standing Orders (22 JULY] Special Adjournment

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! As the Leader of the H ouse he has the right to move that the question be now put. Any member can do that, whether he has spoken or not.

Question-That the question be now put (Mr. Bjelke-Petersen's motion)-put; and the House divided-

AYEs, Armstrong Bird Bjelke-Petersen Camm Camp bell Chalk Chinch en Cory Crawford Delamothe Fletcher Heatley H erbert H ewitt, N. T. E . Hewitt, W . D . H inze B adges H ough ton Hungerford Jones, V . E . Kaus

Aiken Bald win Bennett Blake Bousen Bromley Davies Davis Dean H anlon H anson H ouston Inch Jensen J ones, R . Jordan Lloyd

NOES,

39

31

Resolved in the affirmative.

Knox Lee Lickiss McKechnie Miller M oore, R. E . M uller Murray Newbery Porter Ramsden R ichter R ow Sullivan Tomkins Wharton

Tellers: Ahern H ughes

M arginson Melloy Moore, F . P . Newton O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker Wallis-Smith W ood, B. Wood, P . Wright

Tellers: Casey H arris

Mr. SPEAKER: The question now is-"That legislation be introduced to for

bid Cabinet Ministers and members of their immediate family from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the Government through a member of Cabinet."

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba-Leader of the Opposition) (6.4 p.m.): Mr. Speaker, will you please clear up, in my mind at any rate, the position under Standing Order No. 158? It lays down-

"A Member shall not be entitled to vote either in the H ouse or in a Committee upon any Question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed."

The motion is to forbid Cabinet members from holding shares. If it is carried, Ministers who have shares will either have to dispose of them or resign from Cabinet. I claim that, under Standing Order 158, they have a direct interest in this matter. Therefore, you should rule that they are not entitled to vote on this motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, if it were to rule that way,

I would have to rule it 100 times in each, session of Parliament. On this occasion, I say that Standing Order 158 does not apply.

Mr. HOUSTON: I move-"That Mr. Speaker's ruling be dissented

from." Question-That Mr. H ouston's motion-

"That legislation be introduced to forbid Cabinet Ministers and members of their immediate family from holding shares in companies which could be expected to have dealings with the G overnment th rough a member of Cabinet."-

be agreed to-put; and the H ouse d ividedAYES, 31

Aiken Baldwin Bennett Blake Bousen Bromtey Casey Davies Dean Hanlon H anson Harris H ouston Inch J ensen Jones, R . J ordan

Ahern NOES, 39

Arm strong Bird Bjelke-Petersen Camm Camp bell Chalk Chinchen Cory Delamothe Fletcher Heatley Herbert H ewitt, N. T . E. H ewitt, W . D. Hinze H odges H oughton Hughes Hungerford Jones, V. E .

Resolved in the negative.

Lloyd Margin son Mel!oy Moore, F. P. Newton O'Donnell Sherrington Thackeray Tucker Wood, B. Wood, P. Wright

Tellers : Davis Wallis-Smith

Kaus Knox Lee Lickiss Miller Moore, R. E. M uller M urray Newbery Porter Ramsden Richter Row Sullivan Tomkin s Wharton

Tellers :

Crawford McKechnie

Mr. BENNETI: I rise to a furth er point of order. As this Parliament, under the Constitution, is of superior status to Cabinet, I am asking whether or not the high standard allegedly pursued by Cabinet wherein Cabinet Ministers do not vote on issues in which they have a personal interest will be followed by Parliament itself, which is immeasurably superior to Cabinet.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! A dissent motion has already been moved against my ruling and I am not going to have a premature debate on it. The House now resumes under normal Standing Orders.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah

Premier): I move-"ThaJt the H ouse, at its rising, do

adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow." Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

legislative assembly wednesday july

Documents